User talk:Exercisephys

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Oxandrolone. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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; 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. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Did you seriously just hit me with a Twinkle warning template over this? You twice removed a section I wrote, citing a MoS guideline that doesn't apply. I had already clearly described the multiple reasons why it doesn't apply both in the talk page and in an inline comment. You ignored both of these and are trying to escalate a conflict. Exercisephys (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your behavior is inappropriate. You added content, I contested it. The appropriate thing to do is discuss before re-adding. My objection is not trivial. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I had already thoroughly and successfully defended that section from your objection (MEDMOS), which was originally made by another editor. You never explained why you think the existing consensus was wrong. Exercisephys (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me. Your behavior is inappropriate. Instead of using the DR process you simply edit warred. Not promising for your future here. You do not understand this place. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: "Edit warring" doesn't apply to "I made a rash removal and someone reverted it." I already successfully defended that section - explain your reasoning and shift the consensus before removing it.

Also, in response to this:

Not promising for your future here. You do not understand this place.

You realize I have 2,356 edits on this account and >1,500 on others, and that I've been around since 2011, right?

I have over 60K edits, so what? Driving "your work" into WP instead of working through objections is not what we do here. Everything you have done here and your attitude toward "your work" is not appropriate. As I noted on Talk there are many WP:DR routes to pursue and you are making this personal and urgent, both of which are incorrect. Content that has strong policy objections should not remain in articles while it is under discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: My point is that your patronizing comments about me "not understanding this place" are pointless. I'm leaving the section until you make a good argument for its removal instead of continuing this goofy posturing and indignation. I have already thoroughly addressed the exact complaint you keep repeating. Exercisephys (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• about this - it is one thing to say you read policy/guidelines differently; it is another to claim that others are actually not reading them or your arguments. Please don't accuse other people of being thoughtless or careless - you have no way of knowing that. All my comments here have been about your behavior, not why you are acting badly.. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2016 (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. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Exercisephys. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Exercisephys. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]