Revision as of 20:51, 21 December 2012 editZaalbar (talk | contribs)298 edits →Rupert Murdoch← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:09, 22 December 2012 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,050 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Same-sex marriage. (TW)Next edit → | ||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
Thanks for the fix . ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 19:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC) | Thanks for the fix . ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 19:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
:You're welcome. ] (]) 20:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC) | :You're welcome. ] (]) 20:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
== December 2012 == | |||
] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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 don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 19:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:09, 22 December 2012
November 2012
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Pink News was changed by Zaalbar (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.893959 on 2012-11-02T14:59:53+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Pink News with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not vandalism; read the source. Zaalbar (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies. Feel free to remove the warning. - DVdm (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did to Pink News with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Stop using templates and read the freaking source before reverting edits. Zaalbar (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Self-serving SPSs
Please read WP:SPS, especially the line that deals with self-serving sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't apply to what we have in dispute. Zaalbar (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to quote the person, you should use quote marks, because that's how quoting works. However, it is still preferable to use language that is clear and neutral, so the reader will know what the article means, and thus I do not recommend reverting again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- He doesn't need to be quoted, we just can't change what he said. Zaalbar (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- When you argue that we have to use his words, which we wouldn't write in normal encyclopedic prose, you are arguing that we must quote him. This seems fairly simple. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- We can do anything as long as we don't change what he says. Interpreting what he means by 'protect marriage' and then re-writing it to what we think it means is not appropriate. Zaalbar (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- When you argue that we have to use his words, which we wouldn't write in normal encyclopedic prose, you are arguing that we must quote him. This seems fairly simple. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- He doesn't need to be quoted, we just can't change what he said. Zaalbar (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to quote the person, you should use quote marks, because that's how quoting works. However, it is still preferable to use language that is clear and neutral, so the reader will know what the article means, and thus I do not recommend reverting again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Stop edit warring, please
Stop edit warring on Australian Christian Lobby or you'll be in violation of WP:3RR and most likely be blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 21:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 11:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC).
Edit warring again
When material you add or restore to an article is challenged and reverted, it is up to YOU to discuss the matter on the article talk page and get consensus there BEFORE the material can be added. The source you used was not reliable for the information added. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ha! I can't believe you of all people are bringing up BRD. Zaalbar (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Input provided at RSN, heading out now
Hi Zaalbar, thanks for considering my responses at your RSN discussion thoughtfully. Just wanted to let you know I'm heading out for the weekend, so I may not have another chance to respond. Just FYI in case you were going to be looking for any more input from me there. Cheers, have a great weekend. Zad68
20:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I'll look for the full interview and see what can be added. You too. Zaalbar (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Mathew Shepard
I would strongly suggest that you stop roaming Misplaced Pages trying to re-define Shepard's murder as a "possible" hate crime based only on the claims of the perpetrators. We would not change an article on a murder to a "possible murder" based on the sole claim by the perpetrator that they were innocent. We stick to the facts and the reliable sources. The minority view may be appropriate to be mentioned in the Shepard article itself, but it is certainly not relevant elsewhere. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's not just based on the attackers. It's one of the girlfriend's, the prosecutor of the case and one of the lead investigators. Zaalbar (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Rupert Murdoch
Thanks for the fix here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Zaalbar (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
December 2012
Your recent editing history at Same-sex marriage shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)