Misplaced Pages

User talk:91.55.206.73: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:58, 3 June 2009 edit91.55.206.73 (talk) →Eurocopter AS332← Previous edit Revision as of 18:22, 5 June 2009 edit undoDavid J Wilson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,570 edits →3-revert rule: new sectionNext edit →
Line 41: Line 41:
I'll re-revert your change. I'll re-revert your change.
Ok on your other reveral. --] (]) 18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Ok on your other reveral. --] (]) 18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

== 3-revert rule ==

As a relatively new Misplaced Pages editor you may not be aware of the Misplaced Pages policies against ] in general, or, more specifically, of the ] against performing more than 3 ] to any single Wikpedia page within the space of 24 hours. An editor who violates this rule ] from editing for up to 24 hours for a first offence. The following two sequences of edits of yours both violate this rule:

*, , , , and to ] (5 reversions within 1 hour of each other)

*, , , , and to ] (5 reversion within 1 hour of each other)

Note that for the purposes of the 3-revert rule, the ''broader'' definition of "reversion" is applied (see the section '']'' in the article on the 3-revert rule). This is done to prevent editors gaming the system—by (for instance) waiting until an intervening edit enables them to undo disputed previous edits without returning the article precisely to a previous state. Thus, for the purposes of the 3-revert rule ''does'' count as a reversion, and the number of reversions in the first sequence of edits ''is'' 5, ''not'' 4. But, in any case, even without that edit, the sequence would still violate the 3-revert rule.

Misplaced Pages has several ] for resolving editing disputes. If you are unable to resolve a dispute by trying to discuss it on the talk page of an article, an appropriate next step would be to ] or open a ]. ''Please use these procedures'' rather than engage in edit wars.<br>
&mdash;]&nbsp;<small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;])</small> 18:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:22, 5 June 2009

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some other hints and tips:

  • I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Misplaced Pages, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
  • When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will answer your questions as far as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! --91.55.206.73 (talk)

Cursing not wanted

Please don't add profanity to your edit summaries. It's considered uncivil behavior and can initiate administrative action against your editing privileges. Thanks for understanding. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, will do. --91.55.206.73 (talk)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Eurocopter AS332

Please don't revert someone out of spite. That would be near edit warring. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

See your talk. --91.55.206.73 (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
His edit reverted my use of date autoformatting. This is not the same issue. Yuor edits now suggest harassment of a particular user by merely contradicting everything he says/ does instead of recognizing his experience or citing where/why you think he's wrong with specific policies/ guidelines/ etc. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I merely removed the empty space. This has nothing to do with dates, he re-added the space on the date reversal's back. --91.55.206.73 (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect. By reverting instead of editing the portion your disagreed with, you reverted his possibly legitimate reversal of my use of date autoformatting. You really shouldn't revert an edit if half or more of it is legitimate. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven't reverted it, unless I completely misunderstand you. Please point out my edit you are referring to as spiteful. --91.55.206.73 (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Oops! You're right; I'm wrong. You didn't technically revert it. Still, your edit summary for this edit was "That was a cheap shot." It sounds like you have a problem with User:BillCJ. Can you explain what you mean by that? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure: While reverting your date change, he re-added one of the empty lines we so enthusiastically talk about. Note that he added one, not both, or I would have assumed he was just sloppy and undid both our changes. Like it is, I have to assume bad faith and call it a cheap shot. --91.55.206.73 (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
You should rather assume good faith and ask him why he is doing that. Also, RE: this. Sure: poor formatting of the notification. I've since fixed it. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this stretches it a bit: He not only piggy-backs a contested edit in an unrelated edit, he also ignores the discussion on the article's talk page and routinely removes anything I say on his /Talk. How, pray tell, should I contact him? By phone? I'll re-revert your change. Ok on your other reveral. --91.55.206.73 (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

3-revert rule

As a relatively new Misplaced Pages editor you may not be aware of the Misplaced Pages policies against edit warring in general, or, more specifically, of the 3-revert rule against performing more than 3 reversions to any single Wikpedia page within the space of 24 hours. An editor who violates this rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours for a first offence. The following two sequences of edits of yours both violate this rule:

Note that for the purposes of the 3-revert rule, the broader definition of "reversion" is applied (see the section Application of the rule in the article on the 3-revert rule). This is done to prevent editors gaming the system—by (for instance) waiting until an intervening edit enables them to undo disputed previous edits without returning the article precisely to a previous state. Thus, for the purposes of the 3-revert rule this edit does count as a reversion, and the number of reversions in the first sequence of edits is 5, not 4. But, in any case, even without that edit, the sequence would still violate the 3-revert rule.

Misplaced Pages has several dispute resolution procedures for resolving editing disputes. If you are unable to resolve a dispute by trying to discuss it on the talk page of an article, an appropriate next step would be to seek a third opinion or open a request for comment on the dispute. Please use these procedures rather than engage in edit wars.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 18:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)