Your recent editing history at Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DrKay (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- When you continue to revert legitimate edits, and ignore requests to start a discussion over consensus if you continue to disagree with them, it is YOU who is attempting to start an edit war. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
New message from GA Melbourne
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Matthew Guy § Removal of section (2022 Victorian state election). - GA Melbourne (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
My problem with your edit summary dated 14:37 22/03
I have reorganised the article 2023 New South Wales state election to include controversies surrounding Perrottet under the "Campaign" section rather than Background, as in previous NSW election articles, and have decreased the detail in which the summary of the Helen Perrottet ambulance incident goes into to better pair with the level of detail that other 'campaign event' inclusions in the article have.
However I am writing to you not to notify you of this, but to let you know that your edit summary which read "Just because you don't think it's relevant doesn't make it so. Don't revert it again." was totally inappropriate within the context of the consensus-based decision-making which occurs on Wikipedia. I engaged in WP:BOLD and cordially invited editors who disagreed with the change to use the talk page to discuss, but instead of doing so, you let me know that your view of how the article should be constructed took precedent over mine. If you had engaged on the talk page, you would have learned that my opposition to its inclusion was because it was not relevant in that Background section but should instead be a section about the campaign as a whole. Edit summaries such as this are not conductive of consensus decision making and certainly do not create a safe environment for editors to engage in WP:BOLD. You do not have the right to tell any editor to refrain from making attempts at good faith, constructive edits. I would invite you to reflect on this. Thanks. J2m5 (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- k Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)