71.111.127.39

Anchor baby

The community consensus, so far, has been that the term "anchor baby" is a derogatory term used primary by anti-immigrants, and that it should be so labelled. If you feel this decision is inappropriate, I would strongly recommend you read the existing discussion on the article's talk page and join the discussion (or start a new discussion) on this subject in an attempt to seek a new consensus through good-faith conversation and compromise. As you have already seen, simply deleting the phrase you don't like, without any explanation or any attempt to discuss your action, is only going to result in your change being dismissed as vandalism and reverted (undone). And if you continue to do this, you risk being blocked from editing.

I would also recommend that if you are going to become involved in ongoing discussions about this or other articles on Wikipedia, you should create an account. Having and using an account provides numerous advantages over simply editing "anonymously" with your IP address used in place of a user name. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have, in fact, brought up your concerns on the article's talk page. Thanks. My other suggestion (regarding creating an account) still stands. Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anchor baby. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Cúchullain ^t/c 21:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've filed an official notice of our current situation on the administrators' "edit-warring noticeboard". I would suggest you click here as soon as possible and make your own views known. This edit-warring notice is not intended as a way of getting you punished; rather, it's an attempt on my part to document what is going on for the benefit of administrators who might otherwise be confused as to whether an edit war is going on and whether any headway is being reached to resolve the dispute. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Anchor baby. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---