User talk:Pgtl 100

Actually the mods are engaged in an edit war. Deleting valid criticism for no reason other than point of view.

Your recent editing history at Eliot Higgins shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 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. Stickee (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:Pgtl_100 reported by User:Stickee (Result: ). Thank you. Stickee (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Pgtl. Thought I'd drop by with some advice. Edit warring is prohibited, even if you're "right". If you get reverted, take it to the article's talk page for discussion. If discussion doesn't accomplish anything, you can get a third opinion, request comments from the community, or if you need to, take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I know it can be frustrating when your edits get reverted, but it's important to work through these disputes rather than revert war over them. This doesn't solve anything and only disrupts articles. A couple other notes: on Wikipedia, always assume good faith regarding other people's motivations, and always focus on content itself rather than making personal comments about other people. Lastly, there are no "moderators" here. Every editor in a dispute is on equal footing and no one owns any article. Just something to keep in mind. Please heed this advice. I know you're new and if you have any questions feel free to ask. We want newcomers to feel welcome but once you're aware of our policies and choose to continue to edit war, it becomes harder to let is slide. Please handle disputes according to the advice I've given you and described at Dispute Resolution. Best regards, Swarm ♠ 07:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is really nonsense because the moderators feelings and opinions on a matter is what holds actual sway. Hence instead of actually presenting actual information with sources, the moderators want you to go through a process so they can reject unwanted information and hide their biases behind a process.

No editor is on equal footing. A moderator dictates what can and cannot be said. That's why Wikipedia is criticize for having a form of group think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgtl 10 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Wikipedia does not have moderators! I promise! No editors have special status and consensus dictates what can and cannot be said and nothing else (apart from applicable laws). If editors are taking 'ownership' of a page, they're in the wrong, and it means you might need to take discussion elsewhere to form an overriding consensus. Swarm ♠ 02:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]