| Revision as of 07:42, 3 October 2015 editMcGeddon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers121,439 edits Warning: Edit warring on Waltzing Matilda. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:48, 3 October 2015 edit undoMark Marathon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,594 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose ]. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-ewsoft --> ] (]) 07:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC) | If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose ]. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-ewsoft --> ] (]) 07:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> | |||
Revision as of 07:48, 3 October 2015
Graham Leonard
Hello.. I noticed you made a correction in this edit. I'm sorry I'm not a native English speaker, I just want to make sure that, based on the source, valid ordination refers to the bishop not the church. I think your recent edit means that all bishop ordained under Old Catholic Church considered as valid, which is incorrect. This is a case by case basis, not all bishop of Old Catholic Church considered by RC as validly ordained. I look forward to hear your thoughts. Regards, Ign christian (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. It certainly has been the case, at least until they began ordaining women, that the ordinations of the Union of Utrecht churches have been recognised as valid by the RCC. I am not aware of any of their ordinations until recent times only being recognised on a case by case basis. So I believe my edit is essentially correct. I also cannot see any difference regarding this matter between my edit and yours in which you asserted that their ordinations are valid. The problem with this is that we don't make assertions in articles about whether anyone's ordinations are valid or not ~ only about whether and by who they are recognised as valid or not. I hope this clarifies matters. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your last edit, now it has greater clarity. I agree with you, my problem is I can't construct a good phrasing as you did. :-) Thanks again, Ign christian (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- No worries. Glad we could discuss this and improve things without any conflict. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your last edit, now it has greater clarity. I agree with you, my problem is I can't construct a good phrasing as you did. :-) Thanks again, Ign christian (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
September 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Waltzing Matilda may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ]'s rendition became the first song to be broadcast to Earth by astronauts.<ref>[http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2014/02/top-10-iconic-banjo-paterson-
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Waltzing Matilda. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Waltzing Matilda shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.