User talk:BoutThatAction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
January 2026
Hi BoutThatAction! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore your preferred version of Justin Wilcox (American football). The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Justin Wilcox (American football), please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. Sugar Tax (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Hi Sugar Tax. I and others have encouraged those blanking to go to talk place and have given them a few warnings. But they insist on vandalism. BoutThatAction (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Justin Wilcox (American football) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.
If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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 do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 19:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Sugar Tax. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Sugar Tax (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
-- Hi Illusion Flame and Sugar Tax, you both have deleted well sourced information. Good-faith vandalism warnings have also been blanked. The information is well-sourced. You need to go to talk before deleting correctly sourced information. Otherwise it is censorship. You have been reported to the Administrators' page. Please cut it out. Wikipedia is not the personal propaganda page of a professional football coach. BoutThatAction (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Please take a step back
You appear to be in an edit war, and trying to use other venues to further your preferred version of the content. Be aware that actions such as misusing the Administrators' Noticeboard, and leaving "warnings" on other users' page falsely accusing them of vandalism, are actions that could lead to your being blocked for disrupting Wikipedia. I encourage you to take your content dispute to the article Talk page and make your case for the text, rather than attacking other editors. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- You are telling others to use the talk page but haven't done so yourself, even after being reverted. Please do so rather than continue this silly edit war. Not everything that can be sourced belongs in an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)