2600:1700:9580:3FF0:F41D:1C21:F54C:87C7

September 2019

Hello, I'm Acroterion. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pederasty, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The reference describes a much broader consensus than just legal and psychological experts. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't just revert until you get your way - Talk:Pederasty is thataway. Acroterion (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You've reverted to your preferred version three times. A fourth revert is sanctionable. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Your recent contributions at Pederasty appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; 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 override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:2600:1700:9580:3FF0:F41D:1C21:F54C:87C7 reported by User:Crossroads1 (Result: ). Thank you. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – bradv🍁 03:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

---