| Revision as of 21:31, 3 March 2017 editKoui² (talk | contribs)443 edits →Air (band)← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:02, 3 March 2017 edit undoRedrose64 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators273,144 edits →Air (band): uw-3rr formally servedNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| Regarding "Often" vs "Sometimes" in the opening sentence of the article ] - there is an open ] on the matter, at ]. Until that RfC is concluded (RfCs typically run for thirty days) and consensus reached, the sentence should ''not'' be altered. Since that RfC opened, there have been - eight of which have concerned that single word. Only two people are involved, and both of you have been around for well over five years, so you should know that this behaviour is clearly ], and also that sanctions are available to prevent this from continuing. Looking back through the page history, I see that the two of you each made more than four reverts on basically the same matter, which (had it been noticed at the time) would have been sufficient grounds to have both of you blocked for violation of ]. Please don't let that happen again; thank you for your patience. --] 🌹 (]) 15:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC) | Regarding "Often" vs "Sometimes" in the opening sentence of the article ] - there is an open ] on the matter, at ]. Until that RfC is concluded (RfCs typically run for thirty days) and consensus reached, the sentence should ''not'' be altered. Since that RfC opened, there have been - eight of which have concerned that single word. Only two people are involved, and both of you have been around for well over five years, so you should know that this behaviour is clearly ], and also that sanctions are available to prevent this from continuing. Looking back through the page history, I see that the two of you each made more than four reverts on basically the same matter, which (had it been noticed at the time) would have been sufficient grounds to have both of you blocked for violation of ]. Please don't let that happen again; thank you for your patience. --] 🌹 (]) 15:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
| :Hello. OK. Just putting it back to the normal version. Please read what happened on the french wiki. Iennes has been blocked for the exact same behaviour, not only once but twice. --] (]) 21:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC) | :Hello. OK. Just putting it back to the normal version. Please read what happened on the french wiki. Iennes has been blocked for the exact same behaviour, not only once but twice. --] (]) 21:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
| ::No. You should ''discuss'' it; and for making {{diff|Air (band)|prev|768448851|this revert}} (see the sentence "Any appearance of ] by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring." at ]), I am formally serving you with: | |||
| ] 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] 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 --> --] 🌹 (]) 22:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:02, 3 March 2017
Air (band)
Regarding "Often" vs "Sometimes" in the opening sentence of the article Air (band) - there is an open RfC on the matter, at Talk:Air (band)#Rfc. Until that RfC is concluded (RfCs typically run for thirty days) and consensus reached, the sentence should not be altered. Since that RfC opened, there have been nine edits to the article - eight of which have concerned that single word. Only two people are involved, and both of you have been around for well over five years, so you should know that this behaviour is clearly edit warring, and also that sanctions are available to prevent this from continuing. Looking back through the page history, I see that on 17 February alone the two of you each made more than four reverts on basically the same matter, which (had it been noticed at the time) would have been sufficient grounds to have both of you blocked for violation of WP:3RR. Please don't let that happen again; thank you for your patience. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello. OK. Just putting it back to the normal version. Please read what happened on the french wiki. Iennes has been blocked for the exact same behaviour, not only once but twice. --Koui² (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
- No. You should discuss it; and for making this revert (see the sentence "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring." at WP:EW), I am formally serving you with:
Your recent editing history at Air (band) 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)