Your recent editing history at Holodomor genocide question 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 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 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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of the tension between us at Talk:Memphis Meats has arisen because you feel the need to describe what I am saying. You get it wrong pretty much every time, and I tell you so. And then you say something in reply to that
There is no need for you to describe what I am saying. Please just stop doing it, and then I can stop saying you are wrong.
I'm not even sure what this is in a response to ... but it would not be the first time I've made a statement and you've assumed it is about you or your thoughts. Obviously the first time it happened, I merely noted the differences between multiple versions of a paragraph (which you presented as packaged in a vote), and you insisted that none of the differences were what you were talking about (which is fine, but of course that makes it all the more scandalous that you would package those differences). Bluntly, the RfC as you set it up was pretty transparent. I mean we've been over this ... many times now ... and the survey that has nothing to do with the current compromise version multiple people are working on is basically the perfect proof of why it was a poor move. The survey has added nothing. I explained that this would be the case. I explained that none of the users were advocating what you accused them of advocating for. You insisted that they were, and you continue to so insist (which is why Utsill responded so negatively to your description of the RfC - I would too if I were in his shoes). And now you seem to not understand why there are bad feelings on the page. Rather than focusing on or justifying those bad feelings, let's just keep working for a consensus, as we should have been doing from the start.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you keep doing it, with this. There is no need for that comment. It did nothing to move anything forward but just muddied the water even more. Please just stop. Next time you start to type "you" or "Jytdog" at the Talk page, just delete it and start over. Just. stop. Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog you don't seem to understand how conversations work. There, you had suggested I was saying something I wasn't (ironic, but I'm not surprised by the double standard), and I was clarifying what I meant. If you say "YOU'RE CALLING ME ASKING IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS ODD?!?!!?," then I will clarify, which is an elaboration of what I had meant, not what you had meant. The world revolves around the sun, not you. –-216.12.10.118 (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to your description of my question to Utsill as "odd". There was no value to your initial comment about my question to Utsill - no value to calling it "odd" (on any level - it wasn't a question to you in any case, and there is nothing odd about querying for consensus). If you will stop commenting about what I am writing and stick to commenting about content, all of this will go away. Just stop commenting about what I write. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I replied to your description" ... "Just stop commenting about what I write" ... brilliant. I suppose pointing out ambiguity in a statement could be called "valueless," although frankly if others don't understand the meaning of your comment you probably should hope that they let you know. Regardless, I'm not sure what the cause of this rant is but it does not seem productive to achieving a consensus so let's just keep the conversation on the issues on the Talk page - and it seems like we are making progress there, so it's a worthy object to focus on! Thanks!--137.54.11.138 (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Qzd. I noticed that in this edit to Topological defect, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Qzd (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
