| Revision as of 23:40, 29 October 2014 editEvergreenFir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators129,254 edits →October 2014← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:57, 29 October 2014 edit undoEChastain (talk | contribs)2,665 edits →October 2014: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
| '''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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 22:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | '''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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 22:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :You didn't even give me 3 minutes to post on the talk page before reverting. After posting the screenshot of the article that you didn't read, you still reverted anyway. ]. I'll let others weigh in. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 23:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | :You didn't even give me 3 minutes to post on the talk page before reverting. After posting the screenshot of the article that you didn't read, you still reverted anyway. ]. I'll let others weigh in. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 23:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| {{re|EvergreenFir}} you should know better than to revert three minutes after my revert (which I had justified on talk) without engaging on the talk page or even reading it. You had not responded to the link I gave to the scholarly article you used for the citation, proving that it didn't say what you claimed it did. I have posted quite a bit on talk, while you have posted nothing of relevance, except to claim that you have no time to look into the problems and asking others to do it. Really? What made it so important that you must revert without knowing anything at all about why? Please, be a more professional academic if you're going to claim you're one, or you'll make us all look bad! ] (]) 23:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:57, 29 October 2014
Welcome
|
arbcom
You are clearly editing in response to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force. Please follow Misplaced Pages's guidelines and rules, specifically regarding WP:RS. You do not seem to be adhering to a neutral point of view. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@User:EvergreenFir There are no reliable sources in Mansplaining supporting your claim that it's an academic concept. No reason for your revert. EChastain (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- There are. Read WP:LEAD. Also see Talk:Mansplaining#Meme. Attempting dispute resolution. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@User:EvergreenFir, I read WP:LEAD, and Mansplaining doesn't follow it. It doesn't have a lead that can stand alone and sums up the article:
"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
- Do not violate Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section.
EChastain (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
Your recent editing history at Mansplaining shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, 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. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- You didn't even give me 3 minutes to post on the talk page before reverting. After posting the screenshot of the article that you didn't read, you still reverted anyway. WP:IDHT. I'll let others weigh in. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: you should know better than to revert three minutes after my revert (which I had justified on talk) without engaging on the talk page or even reading it. You had not responded to the link I gave to the scholarly article you used for the citation, proving that it didn't say what you claimed it did. I have posted quite a bit on talk, while you have posted nothing of relevance, except to claim that you have no time to look into the problems and asking others to do it. Really? What made it so important that you must revert without knowing anything at all about why? Please, be a more professional academic if you're going to claim you're one, or you'll make us all look bad! EChastain (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)