| Revision as of 14:45, 25 October 2012 editAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,561,001 editsm Substing templates: {{uw-3rr}}. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info.← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:47, 25 October 2012 edit undoCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →Continued edit warring RT (TV network): added two objections since I see you've interrupted comments a third time. Please remove your comments from inside mine immediately.Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr -->'' | To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr -->'' | ||
| <u>Comment</u>: Obviously you were . But as the template makes clear, just reverting things that you don't like ''when your initial revert was reverted'' (and by someone else, not me) and doing so ''under the pretext'' they are being discussed at the talk page, is a problem. Continuing to interrupt a person's talk page entries after they |
<u>Comment</u>: Obviously you were . But as the template makes clear, just reverting things that you don't like ''when your initial revert was reverted'' (and by someone else, not me) and doing so ''under the pretext'' they are being discussed at the talk page, is a problem. Continuing to interrupt a person's talk page entries after they have objected twice and hassle them about it is also disruptive edit warring behavior. '''Please remove your comments from inside mine immediately.''' I just want you to be aware of what I perceive your behavior as being and as admins might also perceive it as being, should it continue in this pattern. '']'' 14:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:47, 25 October 2012
Please observe talk page rules
Per your interrupting comments here. Please see Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines and Misplaced Pages:Talk_page#Others.27_comments. You don't interrupt a person's points with your comments. You can copy the relevant comments and then reply to those. This is second time in two days I've had to do this. Did you notice yesterday? Thanks. CarolMooreDC 18:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- , can you find the specific clause in Misplaced Pages's talk page guidelines that says you don't interrupt a person's points with your comments?Festermunk (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- First, let's not split up the discussion. Obviously the language in policy links I gave you is not as clear as it seems to me it used to be, but I'm working on getting that clarified and meanwhile requested you stop it. I added my full comments above yours; I'll keep on doing it. So if you want to be uncooperative and uncollaborative, others can judge that as they may. CarolMooreDC 21:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Per the link I provided you above : Interruptions: In some cases, it is okay to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic or subtopic; in that case, one might add :Heading added for REASON by CarolMooreDC 14:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC) below the heading to make the nature of the change clearer). When introducing an interruptive break, please add — USER NAME OR IP , — (continues after insertion below.) before the interruption. One may also manually ensure that attribution is preserved by copy-pasting the original signature to just before the interruption. However, this assumes a really long thread and the editor doesn't object, which most do and I do. CarolMooreDC 14:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- First, let's not split up the discussion. Obviously the language in policy links I gave you is not as clear as it seems to me it used to be, but I'm working on getting that clarified and meanwhile requested you stop it. I added my full comments above yours; I'll keep on doing it. So if you want to be uncooperative and uncollaborative, others can judge that as they may. CarolMooreDC 21:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Continued edit warring RT (TV network)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Comment: Obviously you were blocked last time for 3rr. But as the template makes clear, just reverting things that you don't like when your initial revert was reverted (and by someone else, not me) and doing so under the pretext they are being discussed at the talk page, is a problem. Continuing to interrupt a person's talk page entries after they have objected twice and hassle them about it is also disruptive edit warring behavior. Please remove your comments from inside mine immediately. I just want you to be aware of what I perceive your behavior as being and as admins might also perceive it as being, should it continue in this pattern. CarolMooreDC 14:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)