User talk:DeadJoe98

Hi DeadJoe98, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as

contentious

. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the

administrators

have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable
  policies and guidelines
  ;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from
  gaming the system
  .

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet How am I the one being engaged in the edit war, but not MrOllie? I made a change based on my understanding of the criteria and MrOllie made his first revert without any explanation whatsoever. MrOllie then proceeded to assume my intentions and revert again, even though his assumption about me was wrong.

If I am engaged in the edit war, then so is he, but I just want to point out that you did not leave a similar message on MrOllie's talk page, despite all of the above. DeadJoe98 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one changing away from the longstanding classification. You are the one approaching the talk page with activist arguments. You are the new user who is suspiciously familiar with Wikipedia practices. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not approaching the talk page with activist arguments, I am approaching it with an aim of improving and correctly classifying it. I am not a part of any activist group, nor am I making edits on anyone's behalf. Your last point about me knowing about Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to the conversation about who is engaged in the edit war. DeadJoe98 (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]