| Revision as of 18:44, 27 February 2014 editRahibsaleem (talk | contribs)242 editsm Reverted good faith edits by Malik_shabazz (talk): See Talk page. (TW)): stop the edit wars or admin will intervene← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:21, 27 February 2014 edit undoHullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers96,059 edits 3RR warningNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| ]<!-- Template:Teahouse_HostBot_Invitation --> | ]<!-- Template:Teahouse_HostBot_Invitation --> | ||
| == February 2014 == | |||
| ] 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 --> — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Edit warring warning== | |||
| ] 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 ]. {{Break}}Your proposed addition has been disputed by multiple editors. Absent an active violation of a central policy like BLP, you need to establish consensus for its inclusion. When, as here, the dispute is over the prominence to be given to the material in dispute, rather than its inclusion per se, edit warring in the absence of consensus is particularly inappropriate. Making personal attacks on editors who disagree with you, on the article talk page or elsewhere, is clearly improper, and may also lead to suspension of your editing privileges.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 19:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:21, 27 February 2014
Hi welcome to wikipedia Rahibsaleem (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot
|
Hi Rahibsaleem! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. |
February 2014
Your recent editing history at Jews 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. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 19:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring warning
Your recent editing history at Jews 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.
Your proposed addition has been disputed by multiple editors. Absent an active violation of a central policy like BLP, you need to establish consensus for its inclusion. When, as here, the dispute is over the prominence to be given to the material in dispute, rather than its inclusion per se, edit warring in the absence of consensus is particularly inappropriate. Making personal attacks on editors who disagree with you, on the article talk page or elsewhere, is clearly improper, and may also lead to suspension of your editing privileges. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)