Hewdropsbow
September 2015
edit
Hello, I'm Sam Sailor. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Model minority without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
And since when did "Indians" also cover "Pakistani"? Please be more WP:CAREFUL. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's no reason to add certain ethnicity but avoid other ethnicity, especially when Pakistanis have no such image outside the USA. The term Indian/South Asian can be used as a generic term for all South Asians in the opening paragraph. Hewdropsbow (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
September 2015
edit
Your recent editing history at Model minority 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 get 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. Jobas (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- The POV has already been discussed on the talk page. No-one else has replied since the edit war started. Hewdropsbow (talk) 11:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agian this not my edit in the first place, you keeping removing just becouse you don't like.Jobas (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop edit warring over this. Hewdropsbow have made no comments on the article talk page although I advised them to. I have posted on the article talk page and hope for a clear and neutral debate about the five changes Hewdropsbow have made to the article text. Until a consensus for the changes is established, please do not repeat unilateral deletion. The guideline to follow in a situation like this is WP:BRD. Thanks. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agian this not my edit in the first place, you keeping removing just becouse you don't like.Jobas (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, 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.