Cdvbfgb
March 2025
edit
Hi Cdvbfgb! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of University of California, Davis several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:University of California, Davis, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Concur. Also, while many of your edits deleted unsourced information, several of your edits deleted sourced information or information in the lead paragraphs which was supported later on in the article. If you are going to make that many edits to the existing version of an article, you need to explain your edits first on the talk page. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on University of California, Davis. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Redraiderengineer (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
edit
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. ElKevbo (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
March 2025
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)I appreciate you have issues with this article, but if you get blowback from other editors, you need to stop and use the talk page to form an agreement. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Fully concur with the above point and with the decision to impose a block. If you're getting that much resistance, it's a sign that your logic doesn't make sense to others and you need to stop and think really hard through what you are doing. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Please stop labeling edits as minor when they are not. No edit that makes substantive changes, including deletion of unsourced content, is minor. Anerdw (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- You are still making substantive edits and marking them as minor. Please stop. ElKevbo (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
March 2025
edit Hello, I'm Drdr150. I noticed that you recently removed content from University of Miami Division of Surgical Neurooncology without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please see this section on the Citation Needed info article. If the content is truly unsourced, please add the citation needed tag rather than delete the content. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 15:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
POV edits
edit
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by removing material solely to impose your own point of view. ElKevbo (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- no, i just removed promotional parts or irrelevant parts to maintain neutral content. Many editors are from ucd current students or alumni. The promotional language is implicit. Many are just comments with deliberate choices of words to promote schools. Cdvbfgb (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I used the words carefully so not to be blocked. If blocked, it is a short-term blockage at most. a completely neutral wiki page of a big school with this rank is rare--I cannot say any more. Cdvbfgb (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- the point of view in the original article is apparent. I removed the POV from the original article. Protecting the original article is violating neutral point of view policy and you need to be banned.  Cdvbfgb (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
March 2025
editBecause you have been persistently pushing a negative point of view in violation of the neutral point of view, a core content policy, and editing against consensus, I have indefinitely blocked you from editing University of California, Davis. You are free to make neutral, well-referenced, formal edit requests at Talk: University of California, Davis, which will be completed if your requests gain consensus. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)