User talk:72.86.140.110
June 2016[edit]
Your recent editing history at Pam Bondi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Also, personal attack of other editors are not allowed, so please stop doing it. See WP:NPA. Article such as this are also under discretionary sanctions, which I will tell you about in my next post. - MrX 18:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You know what, if you want to block me from editing then knock yourself out. This is a perfect example about why intelligent people throw up their hands with WP. I have devoted many hours to trying to get this simple, well documented info onto Bondi's page...in the face of intense opposition from a lone loose cannon who will say or do almost anything to block it. He is an obvious partisan axe-grinder, so why has he been permitted to continue in that vein? He has also made a practice of mocking and vilifying me at every turn, something which you have apparently not taken him to task for. Why has he been allowed to continue in that vein?
- You have no room to play the victim. I can show time and time and time again where you engaged in personal attacks. Given that your sole reason for being on Wikipedia is to spend "many hours" trying to make a single point, calling anyone else partisan is laughable. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions Alert[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |