User talk:Aragorn8354

Edit warring warning.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

It's amusing to me that I did start a discussion and all you did was pigheadedly keep reverting a 100% correct edit back to a 100% wrong version like a good little sheep. Seriously, where did you ever enter into the discussion on the talk page. The only one I see there is Koala15. Aragorn8354 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. XXX8906 (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Incivility

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. They aren't there for you to soapbox or to denigrate other users. With this comment, you return to Wikipedia's 'worthless electrons' a month after you left the conversation to point out how sad and arrogant other Wikipedia editors are. Surely you see the irony in that? Arrogance is one person telling the entire Wikipedia community that their "no original research" policy is wrong. Sad is coming back a month after the fact to perpetuate a fruitless conversation and to provoke other editors. If you had a genuine interest in challenging Zap2It as a reliable source, your recourse would have been to bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard, but I also pointed out to you that Zap2It was not the only source using the Wormquake! title--Nickelodeon's own website called it that. Somehow you must have missed that, perhaps since you were so eager to beef with everybody. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)