| Revision as of 15:00, 1 October 2013 editRandy Kryn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users284,023 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:29, 7 October 2013 edit undoBetty Logan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers78,448 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Soylent Green. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Hi. Please look at my new change as well as the edit comments on the article-history page of Festivus. It feels right as a good alternative to what we've been changing, and I think it defines it better as well. Have a look, let me know if it's close to what the thing actually is. Thanks. ] 16:07 29 September 2013 (UTC) | Hi. Please look at my new change as well as the edit comments on the article-history page of Festivus. It feels right as a good alternative to what we've been changing, and I think it defines it better as well. Have a look, let me know if it's close to what the thing actually is. Thanks. ] 16:07 29 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Thanks! Now we both can watch the page in the upcoming months, esp. in December. There were two years when I was actually the only one riding herd on the IPs and editing-while-drunk red-link users. Appreciated. ] 15:00 1 October 2013 (UTC) | :Thanks! Now we both can watch the page in the upcoming months, esp. in December. There were two years when I was actually the only one riding herd on the IPs and editing-while-drunk red-link users. Appreciated. ] 15:00 1 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == October 2013 == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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 ] 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 --> ''Johnny, you fully aware of the discussion at ] and even supported moving the link to the "See also" section, so is simply disruptive. The clear consensus is to delete the section and relocate the link.'' ] (]) 05:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:29, 7 October 2013
Hi. Please look at my new change as well as the edit comments on the article-history page of Festivus. It feels right as a good alternative to what we've been changing, and I think it defines it better as well. Have a look, let me know if it's close to what the thing actually is. Thanks. Randy Kryn 16:07 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! Now we both can watch the page in the upcoming months, esp. in December. There were two years when I was actually the only one riding herd on the IPs and editing-while-drunk red-link users. Appreciated. Randy Kryn 15:00 1 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Your recent editing history at Soylent Green 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. Johnny, you fully aware of the discussion at Talk:Soylent Green#Trivia? and even supported moving the link to the "See also" section, so this edit is simply disruptive. The clear consensus is to delete the section and relocate the link. Betty Logan (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)