| Revision as of 20:24, 8 June 2006 editBobblehead (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,705 edits →User notice: temporary 3RR block← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:44, 8 June 2006 edit undo8bitJake (talk | contribs)1,659 edits →User notice: temporary 3RR blockNext edit → | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
| :Just a suggestion that saves FRCP11 from 3RR. Instead of outright reverting, make a modification to his updates. As long as you are making modifications instead of completely removing it falls under ] which isn't exactly smiled upon, but it won't get you blocked. --] 20:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | :Just a suggestion that saves FRCP11 from 3RR. Instead of outright reverting, make a modification to his updates. As long as you are making modifications instead of completely removing it falls under ] which isn't exactly smiled upon, but it won't get you blocked. --] 20:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| I just love the fact that his claim got him blocked and now the admins are going over his records.--] 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:44, 8 June 2006
Henry M. Jackson
Hi. User:FRCP11 has request action be taken with regard to a violation of the Three revert rule. That rule states that a user shall not revert an edit 3 times during a twenty-four hour period, otherwise they shall be liable to be blocked. I've reviewed your edits to this page and there do appear to be 3 or more reverts to the same text in 24hours, meaning you have compromised the 3RR. Since the edits were from yesterday, I am leaving this warning on your talk page to draw your attention to the rule, rather than blocking your account. Please consider the rule and discuss edits on the talk page rather than reverting edits you do not agree with. Kcordina 10:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Following further reversions (eg. ) you have been blocked for contravention of wikipedias 3 revert rule. Kcordina 19:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Immediately after returning to Misplaced Pages from his 24-hour suspension for reverting an article eight times in under 24 hours, User:8bitJake deleted all of the language from the article that four out of five editors agreed was notable and verifiable. He dishonestly titled his reversion as Restore consensus version. This is poor sportsmanship at its worst. -- FRCP11 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocked
 |
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. |
AmiDaniel (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Christine Gregoire and Strategic Vision
Do you have a linkable source where someone in the Washington Dems saying Strategic Vision's goal is "to shape media perceptions"? I did a google search on the wa-democrats.org and found these that reference Strategic vision as "GOP firm Strategic Vision" and referred to David Johnson as "A Republican party pollster", but that was the closest I got. --Bobblehead 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Executive DirectorJaxon Ravens used the term in a speech to the Young Democrats. I think I saw it used by Paul Berent. I still can't believe that they don't have all former articles searchable on wa-democrats.org.--8bitJake 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ahhh. Okay. We'll see what FRCP11 thinks of the mods with sources. --Bobblehead 22:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I am skeptical of his willingness to work together towards a quality article. That text has been in there for months. --8bitJake 22:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe. It lacked a inline cite which makes some editors edgy. The additions of an inline cite for David Johnson and further sources in the discussion should solve the problem though. --Bobblehead 22:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- The text lacked a cite and seemed an awfully aggressive allegation without a cite. Once a cite was provided, I was fine with it. -- FRCP11 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll wait to see what RFCP11's response to my proposed solution is before removing the POV tag. The downside with wikipedia's policies is that anyone can claim POV and it has to remain until the conflict is resolved. --Bobblehead 19:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"Democrat Party" article
Hello 8bit. Our old friend rjensen is up to his old tricks and has written an article called "Democrat Party" that dignifies this term. Misplaced Pages is considering deleting the Democrat Party (United States) article. I hope you will weigh in on the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_(United_States) I believe an article about this perjorative term doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
User notice: temporary 3RR block
Regarding reversions made on June 8 2006 (UTC) to Christine Gregoire
|
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. |
That FRCP11 sure likes to throw around 3RR claims when he does not get his way.--8bitJake 19:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just a suggestion that saves FRCP11 from 3RR. Instead of outright reverting, make a modification to his updates. As long as you are making modifications instead of completely removing it falls under edit war which isn't exactly smiled upon, but it won't get you blocked. --Bobblehead 20:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I just love the fact that his claim got him blocked and now the admins are going over his records.--8bitJake 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)