Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:30, 9 January 2013

December 2012

Please read WP:CIV, particularly the section on "Edit summary dos and don'ts", and act accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history at Kenny Everett 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. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Cleo Rocos 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. Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Reliable sources

Before you get blocked for a combination of edit warring, disruptive editing, and incivility, please read the policy on using reliable sources, and then you'll understand why this is not an invalid POV claim, and not a valid reason for reversion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I can find sources that say that Sergeant Pepper is the Beatle's best album. I can find sources that say that War and Peace is the best book ever written. I can find sources that say that British Airways is the world's favourite airline. Putting those claims directly into an article, in the voice of the encyclopaedia, violates NPOV. If you can't understand that, you really shouldn't be editing. You are edit-warring to force blatantly biased material into the encyclopaedia, and that's a very silly thing to do. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I find it scarcely believable that people will go to such lengths as block someone to prevent the enforcement of a core policy. It's simple to understand and very obvious that "best known for" is an opinion. I can hardly even comprehend that someone would edit war to enforce this obviously wrong wording, still less that the party enforcing the policy correctly would get blocked. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

January 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Cleo Rocos. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, Citizen Kane contains multiple references and statements in the lead to it being the best film ever made - be a dear and pop over there to remove them would you? Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I really didn't think I was making a subtle, difficult point about Citizen Kane but it looks like you missed it anyway. The article does not state that it's the best film ever made. It states that it has been described by many critics as the best film ever made. The former is opinion, the latter is fact. If you seriously can't understand this, it's no wonder you're doing so much damage. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Cleo Rocos. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Ok, so I've hit you witha template, but please pay attention to the last paragraph: "Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you." Your behaviour and unique intepretation of policy has already led to you being blocked once. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)