| Revision as of 07:32, 19 May 2013 editPeterzor (talk | contribs)556 edits Undid revision 555756109 by Peterzor (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:17, 19 May 2013 edit undoDiannaa (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators349,449 edits Comments on your edits to Nazi GermanyNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| {{divbox|blue|radius=1em||An editor must not perform '''more than three reverts''' on a '''single page'''—whether involving the same or different material—within a '''24-hour period'''. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation.}}] (]) 16:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | {{divbox|blue|radius=1em||An editor must not perform '''more than three reverts''' on a '''single page'''—whether involving the same or different material—within a '''24-hour period'''. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation.}}] (]) 16:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :We have an informal process that most follow when there is a dispute about content as outlined at ]. Please come to the talk page. You may have noticed I agree with one of your edits and would like you to join the talk page on the matter over getting blocked. You may have noticed that I had restored the article to its original version before the content dispute despite agreeing with a portion of your edit - this is because there is a debate about that term thus the article should remain as it was till it is all worked out.] (]) 18:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | :We have an informal process that most follow when there is a dispute about content as outlined at ]. Please come to the talk page. You may have noticed I agree with one of your edits and would like you to join the talk page on the matter over getting blocked. You may have noticed that I had restored the article to its original version before the content dispute despite agreeing with a portion of your edit - this is because there is a debate about that term thus the article should remain as it was till it is all worked out.] (]) 18:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| : Hi Peterzor. I can understand your enthusiasm and your desire to improve the ] article. But that's not what's actually happening. Your edit warring to insert factually incorrect and/or grammatically incorrect material into the lede is actually holding up development of the article, because to be promoted to ] status, the article will have to be stable, and right now it's not, because of the edit warring. The article would also would fail GA with factually and/or grammatically incorrect material in the lead, so I will have to continue to revert you. As someone who has helped promote quite a few articles to to GA status and has even helped edit Featured Articles, I can tell you that a professional level of English is required for these promotions. Please consider finding some other way to contribute to the encyclopedia. Thank you, -- ] (]) 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:17, 19 May 2013
Edit waring
Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. The three-revert rule states:
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation.Moxy (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- We have an informal process that most follow when there is a dispute about content as outlined at Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Please come to the talk page. You may have noticed I agree with one of your edits and would like you to join the talk page on the matter over getting blocked. You may have noticed that I had restored the article to its original version before the content dispute despite agreeing with a portion of your edit - this is because there is a debate about that term thus the article should remain as it was till it is all worked out.Moxy (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Peterzor. I can understand your enthusiasm and your desire to improve the Nazi Germany article. But that's not what's actually happening. Your edit warring to insert factually incorrect and/or grammatically incorrect material into the lede is actually holding up development of the article, because to be promoted to WP:Good Article status, the article will have to be stable, and right now it's not, because of the edit warring. The article would also would fail GA with factually and/or grammatically incorrect material in the lead, so I will have to continue to revert you. As someone who has helped promote quite a few articles to to GA status and has even helped edit Featured Articles, I can tell you that a professional level of English is required for these promotions. Please consider finding some other way to contribute to the encyclopedia. Thank you, -- Dianna (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)