Hello, Rapidosity, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please acquaint yourself with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine Dodson, which was to delete the article. Favonian (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the rules are you don't re-delete it unless it's a copy of the deleted article. This is a newly written article. So if you want to delete the new version you would have to vote again. Rapidosity (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Third Way (centrism). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 Hours for Violation of the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this policy? How is it harmful to an article if there are many reversions? Rapidosity (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Edit warring: "Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus as to the right way to improve the encyclopedia."--Chaser (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but we weren't edit warring. It doesn't fit the definition. The first line of the "edit warring" article says "an edit war occurs when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion." That's not what was happening. If you look, we were engaged in a lot of discussion. And both parties were making small adjustments with each edit. Wasn't an edit war. Rapidosity (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read in context, edit-warring includes that. Wikipedia:Edit_warring#What_edit_warring_is. It's worse with no discussion, but even with discussion, it is still edit-warring.--Chaser (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just semantics. Even if it is edit warring, I don't see it causing any harm. If you do the same thing stretched out over many days, then it's not an edit war, but if you condense it into 15 minutes, it's an edit war. Doesn't make sense to me. Especially when neither party in the 'edit war' complained about the other party. Rapidosity (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

heads up, you are doing the edit tango with some editors the libertarian article. many have been blocked including myself for the 3 revert rule. take a look at the talk page if you want to dive into the real debate here. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rapidosity (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be making quite a large number of edits at the article that are likely viewed as contentious. You may wish to review the talk page, and begin discussion for your proposed edits. BigK HeX (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BKH is right; please do consider discussing your thoughts on the talk page. The article is quite contentious and while your editing is welcome it could easily spark off an edit war. That is not appropriate --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are all confused. Me speaking there would just add to the confusion. The best thing to do is just put the edits so you can judge them for yourselves. Rapidosity (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable point in a way; but if anything you change is disputed (even once) I recommend you bring it to talk - we want to see content discussed in explicit terms. It might even be beneficial --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to use the talk page and observe WP:BRD. The discussion on the insertion of Ayn Rand has clear support for one or two sentences (which are already there) but there is no support for a whole section. Being bold and editing then seeing what happens is one thing. Reinserting text which is against an existing consensus without discussing is tantamount to edit warring. --Snowded ^TALK 06:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there is not consensus, because I reverted it. You can't assume the talk page is the end-all of consensus. How about us that didn't comment about it? Take my revert as additional evidence of lack of consensus. Rapidosity (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't assume the talk page is the end-all of consensus. it very muhc is though. You must use the talk page for contentious material, this is a strong policy which you shouldn't break. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]