| Revision as of 17:30, 16 August 2012 editDrmargi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers43,746 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:39, 16 August 2012 edit undoAussieLegend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers173,395 edits →You have breached the three-revert rule: +Next edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| : Discussion is open on the talk page, and you continue to edit war. Please review the pages to which Aussie has referred you. You surrendered your right to declare status quo when you failed to initiate a discussion. My version is now status quo, and you must discuss, not edit war. You are now at 5RR. Moreover, before you make accusations of collusion, be sure you know what you're talking about, both in terms of action and policy. --] (]) 17:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC) | : Discussion is open on the talk page, and you continue to edit war. Please review the pages to which Aussie has referred you. You surrendered your right to declare status quo when you failed to initiate a discussion. My version is now status quo, and you must discuss, not edit war. You are now at 5RR. Moreover, before you make accusations of collusion, be sure you know what you're talking about, both in terms of action and policy. --] (]) 17:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::Strictly speaking the status quo is , ie the version before the opposed edits were added. TBrandly, Drmargi and I have all reverted to that version. If you revert to that version voluntarily, you may escape being blocked. --] (]) 17:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:39, 16 August 2012
You have breached the three-revert rule
By making 4 reverts in less than 24 hours, you have breached the three-revert rule at Hotel Hell. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Despite the assertions in your edit summaries, the onus is upon you to initiate discussion on the article's talk page, as per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. This should have occurred after your edits were initially reverted. Simply reverting each time your edits were removed is edit-warring. The edits that you have made are inappropriate because they breach the manual of style, especially WP:LEDE and removed cited, encyclopaedic content. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion is open on the talk page, and you continue to edit war. Please review the pages to which Aussie has referred you. You surrendered your right to declare status quo when you failed to initiate a discussion. My version is now status quo, and you must discuss, not edit war. You are now at 5RR. Moreover, before you make accusations of collusion, be sure you know what you're talking about, both in terms of action and policy. --Drmargi (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking the status quo is this version, ie the version before the opposed edits were added. TBrandly, Drmargi and I have all reverted to that version. If you revert to that version voluntarily, you may escape being blocked. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)