This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 12:44, 11 May 2006 (→Warning: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:44, 11 May 2006 by JzG (talk | contribs) (→Warning: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)User talk Diligens
Pope Pius XII
Hey, could you please join the discussion I started on the talk page about the sentence that you removed from the intro. I'd like to hear your suggestions for how this should be phrased. savidan 01:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. FearÉIREANN
\ 20:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Warning
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Traditionalist Catholic. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. . You have also removed warnings from your Talk page. Please do not do that. Just zis Guy you know? 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
JzG, you violated the results of your own RFC by ignoring the results that went against what you wanted. Now you are trying to change something in the Traditionalist Catholic article that was the approved status quo before the current discussion. You have the nerve to say I am breaking a rule by reverting YOUR violation?? (Diligens 17:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC))
- False. There is no result yet, and the general trend is away from small-t traditional. And even if it wasn't, you are not allowed five reverts, which is what you've done. You have also removed warnings from your Talk page again. Do not do that.
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Just zis Guy you know? 19:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The Bully tactic. You don't have to follow the rules, but I do. A little reflection of which way Misplaced Pages is going. (Diligens 21:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC))
- ...is the wrong answer. You reverted five times in rapid succession, despite the above warnings. That is just about the most uncontentious block there is - it's pretty much automatic. But I posted it on WP:AN/I anyway, so other admins could review it. None seemed to have a problem with it. Just zis Guy you know? 12:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)