Michelleyboland

November 2017

Your recent editing history at Keith Moon 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 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. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not read the details of the matter you are referring to. You are in fact repeating exactly what I had already said to the other person who initiated the editing war on their talk page about how they should engage in dialog rather than engaging in an edit war. Perhaps you should read more details about what you are referring to before you begin to criticise others. Also, in any case, there were only about 3 edits to the page from this account before the edit war stopped. It is over 48 hours since the last edit and was still a long period of time since any edits by the time that you posted your message above. It seems rather silly to criticise after the event has clearly stopped when there had only been 3 or so edits all of which were justified as the reasoning the other account holder had given was flawed for their reverts and their flawed reasoning was explained. I also notice that the other party to this edit war, Ritchie333, has not received a similar warning on his page from yourself despite the fact he was engaging in the same behaviour. Perhaps you would also like to explain this descrepency? Michelleyboland (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

You added the content and it was reverted by myself. You re-added the content, and it was reverted by Ritchie333. You re-added the content a second time. And it was reverted by Ritchie333 for a third time. You added the content a fourth time, and I reverted it. You did this without attempting to discuss why it should be added or address the problems with it I explained on my first revert. This is what makes your behaviour 'warring' and not the same as either mine or Ritchie333. And I added the above warning immediately after I performed the last revert. The warring does not stop being warring once you have got your way.

If you believe you have something new to add to the article, I again invite you to explain it on the talk page. But please also be aware that you will need to bring a better source than your own personal website. This is particularly true when you are, in effect, accusing someone of criminal behaviour. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are incorrect, as you have clearly not looked at Ritchie333's talk page as you would have seen that you are incorrect in what you said about how I was not, as you put it, "attempting to discuss why it should be added or address the problems with it"

This other individual seemed more adament than you to revert the change so I discussed it on his page instead of yours or anywhere else, as it seemed the most appropriate place, as due to what seems to be a confusing and poor design of wikipedia, I could not find a talk page relevent to the article in general which the attention of both of you and others could be drawn to. Perhaps you would care to direct me to it or post a link?

And the warring did not stop because I "got my way" indeed Ritchie333 was the one who "got his way" if anybody. I also said it was 3 "or so" edits, i.e approxiamately! The end of the warring had nothing to do with the limit, which I was not even aware of, or any message from you which was not even read until 2 days later.

Also, as with the other user, you are not appearing to recognise the distinction between making a claim about something as if it is a fact on the one hand, and the fact that someone involved in the incident simply makes a claim about it on the other hand. These are 2 different things. In the former, a personal website may not seem a good enough source, in the latter it clearly should as I already explained on the other users page and can do so also on the talk page of Keith Moon, if you would be good enough to direct me to it.

The talk page for the article is here. The talk page appears at the top of every article page as a 'tab' labelled 'Talk'.

I see now that you did explain your edit with Richie333, and then went immediately to repeat your edit as before. That's not a discussion. It's normal to give the other editor at least 24 hours to respond, not 2 mins. And again, you made no attempt to address the fundamental issues both of us pointed out;

• Your personal website can never be an acceptable source on this matter because it is not what we call a reliable source. Anyone can create a website and claim anything. That doesn't make it good enough for Wikipedia.
• Your claim to have spoken to Tony Fletcher personally has two problems;

• You are just someone anonymous on the internet and we only have your word for it.
• This is what is called original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it does not contain original research.

But please feel free to discuss further on the talk page. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)