Vandalism

edit

Please be mindful of accusations of vandalism. This was not vandalism. Please read WP:AGF. — Czello (music) 18:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

August 2024

edit

  Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Doping in China. Thank you. Amigao (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at Doping in China 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; read about 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. — Czello (music) 06:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from reverting the edits of others on the basis of your political preferences. The arguments for the NPOV edits have long been articulated on the Talk Page, not just by me, but by numerous other editors. These have been unaddressed and willfully ignored. Non-NPOV edits including lengthy allegations in the lead section are contrary to encyclopedic tone and the requirements of objectivity and neutrality. Secondly, a mention of what 3 medals stripped represents (i.e. 2% of the total stripped by the IOC for doping, and less than half that stripped by the United States) is important to introduce context and significance and to indicate the prevalence of doping and is something that meets the requirements of verifiability and required for neutrality. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I strongly reject your claims that I was edit warring. Other editors, however, appear to have been wholesale reverting my edits. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It takes two to edit war and, when I sent you that notice, you had made 3 reverts in 24 hours, so you were on the verge of violating 3RR. Believe me, I'm doing you a favour by giving you a heads up about that. — Czello (music) 07:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply