March 2026
Hi Mnmen! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore a version of Skyscraper. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Skyscraper, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. tony 03:53, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.
If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Acroterion (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
To the two editors above I appreciate the advice, however it seems like they would be best directed at the other editor (LivinAWestLife) given how many more policies they are violating. Mnmen (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- Please state what, if any, policies I am violating? I am sure the Wikipedia community is well aware of how the process works given that I have received no similar warnings from this dispute. Discuss your concern on the relevant talk page and we can come to a consensus, preferably with other editors. LivinAWestLife (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- The onus policy by continuously restoring content which you wrote "despite active opposition to it and the lack of consensus for it to be included in the first place." If you are genuine about wanting this dispute to be resolved through discussion, then you will have to initiate the process as you and not me are trying to include disputed information. Mnmen (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)- Since you chose to ignore my warning, you're blocked. Edit-warring is a bright-line violation. Work it out, or expect more extensive blocks. Acroterion (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- I will open a discussion on the article as you have instructed in due course. However, the page still includes the other editor's disputed content which they put in right before the block that you imposed on both of us. Out of fairness, can you restore the article to the way it was before they included their content? Mnmen (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- No. Administrators don't arbitrate content, they address behavior. We do not participate in edit wars by proxy either - there's nothing at stake that demands reversion to protect the encyclopedia, like a biographies of living persons violation.. See wrong version, a satirical essay born from exasperation at demands that administrators pick sides You are not entitled to revert until you have your way. Acroterion (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- I will open a discussion on the article as you have instructed in due course. However, the page still includes the other editor's disputed content which they put in right before the block that you imposed on both of us. Out of fairness, can you restore the article to the way it was before they included their content? Mnmen (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)