| Revision as of 14:08, 30 December 2014 edit200.83.101.225 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:10, 30 December 2014 edit undoMelbourneStar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers82,994 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Paul Keating. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| ] and ], if you have the time, I would appreciate your thoughts on my recent edits to ]. My carefully explained edits are being undone with unhelpful claims like "not an improvement", with no attempt being made by the reverters to justify their actions. Also, there is an absurd situation at ] in which people wish to mention a speech without explaining what it contained or why it might be important. Thank you very much. ] (]) 14:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | ] and ], if you have the time, I would appreciate your thoughts on my recent edits to ]. My carefully explained edits are being undone with unhelpful claims like "not an improvement", with no attempt being made by the reverters to justify their actions. Also, there is an absurd situation at ] in which people wish to mention a speech without explaining what it contained or why it might be important. Thank you very much. ] (]) 14:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == December 2014 == | |||
| ] 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.{{Break}}''You've been asked to take said edits to the talk page, and discuss them. Surely that isn't difficult to do. Please do so,''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> —]<font color="#FF9F00">☆</font>] 14:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:10, 30 December 2014
Welcome back
Hi, I'm glad you came back. And I'll ping Drmies again. Once more, I'm sorry for using the word "vandal". However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for apologies from others if I were you, and please keep it dialled all the way down in the aspersions casting - and if possible ping me or Drmies when the reverting starts rather than carrying it so far. Or come to my talk page and kick me there. (For one thing one of us may be able to think of a different wording to fix the article.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll be in touch if I run into problems and will endeavour to drop you a line before they really become problems. No worries about the v-word. I was upset that you described me as having been known by it, because it a) wasn't true, and b) could very easily encourage those who believe I was, or am, any such thing.
- Wasn't holding my breath but I was very pleased to see one apology actually given. It's perpetually disappointing that people are free to slander me in as base a way as they please, and there is not an iota of community pressure for them to ever admit that they were wrong. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Problems...
User:Drmies and User:Yngvadottir, if you have the time, I would appreciate your thoughts on my recent edits to Motifs in the James Bond film series. My carefully explained edits are being undone with unhelpful claims like "not an improvement", with no attempt being made by the reverters to justify their actions. Also, there is an absurd situation at Paul Keating in which people wish to mention a speech without explaining what it contained or why it might be important. Thank you very much. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
December 2014
Your recent editing history at Paul Keating 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.
You've been asked to take said edits to the talk page, and discuss them. Surely that isn't difficult to do. Please do so, —MelbourneStar☆ 14:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)