| Revision as of 00:29, 21 February 2009 editDeacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators39,746 editsm →WP:3RR: [← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:30, 21 February 2009 edit undoDeacon of Pndapetzim (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators39,746 edits →WP:3RR: remove accidental reinstatement of warningNext edit → | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| ] (]) 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC) | ] (]) 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Removal of warning== | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Drudge Report|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (<small>]</small>) 00:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Re , you have indeed violated the rule, and it is additionally frowned upon to remove warnings that help administrators keep track of your record. These are your four reverts, all four of which meet the definition of revert per ]: , , , . You should pay special attention to the part of ] that says '''Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in ]'''.] (<small>]</small>) 00:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | :Re , you have indeed violated the rule, and it is additionally frowned upon to remove warnings that help administrators keep track of your record. These are your four reverts, all four of which meet the definition of revert per ]: , , , . You should pay special attention to the part of ] that says '''Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in ]'''.] (<small>]</small>) 00:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 00:30, 21 February 2009
Hello, welcome to my talk page!If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Thank you!
Drudge Report
Ratel thanks for your scholarship at the Drudge Report. Just so long as there is a mention of the true tenor of the Drudge Report in the first paragraph, I would be happy. Not everyone is as intelligent as wiki editors to sniff the truth out about a media site, so it is our responsibility to make sure the general public of all levels can clearly understand the truth. Jason Parise (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think that it is an important core characteristic of any article, to have the first paragraph sum up the essentials of the whole, and a core essential in understanding the Drudge Report is knowing that it does have an obvious conservative bias. The article itself proves it. Perry wishes for more proof but I disagree. Please help me contact the appropriate wiki editors or whoever to help resolve this stand off we have going. Thanks. Jason Parise (talk)
Drudge Report
Thanks for updating the references on the Drudge Report. I didn't want you to think I was deliberately giving you a hard time, I just wanted the sourcing to stand up to any future complaints. 72.84.238.145 (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. You were right. ► RATEL ◄ 03:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Roald Dahl article
Thank you for considering my input. I think the inclusion "according to Clifton" makes the article more accurate. It is still interesting to find out what happened there - when I find something credible I will let you know. Altima5 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
DYK for Suicide bag
|
On 28 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Suicide bag, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Cunard (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Title of interview
Sorry about this. I didn't realize that the caption was the title of the interview. I checked and saw that I my edit was hasty. I hereby sentence myself to ride 20 kilometers on Treebeard's shoulders. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Euthanasia article
Hi Ratel, I will keep an eye on the euthanasia page. Let's try to keep the page neutral and factual (and stop an edit war as soon as we see signs of a start). Thank you for your interest and help! LennartVerhagen (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Removal of warning
- Re your removal of the warning, you have indeed violated the rule, and it is additionally frowned upon to remove warnings that help administrators keep track of your record. These are your four reverts, all four of which meet the definition of revert per WP:3RR: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. You should pay special attention to the part of WP:3RR that says Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)