| Revision as of 18:04, 19 January 2015 editAubmn (talk | contribs)1,347 edits →Babington Plot← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:21, 19 January 2015 edit undoNebY (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,852 edits →Marie Antoinette: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be ]. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-ewsoft --> ] (]) 17:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be ]. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-ewsoft --> ] (]) 17:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Aubmn, you left a message on my talk page saying that you "reverted part of his work then I took most of his contributions into account" and "a lot of his ideas were taken into consideration". Have you read ]? Your phrasing, on my talk page and in your edit comments, suggest that you have not and that you think you can be the judge of what is and is not included in the article. That isn't so. If you wish to defend your many additions to the article, then you need to discuss them on the article talk page and reach consensus, not simply revert changes. You will not reach consensus by posting messages on other editors talk pages like the one you posted on mine ({{tq|" | |||
| it seems you have a problem.... you are here making problems.... it is you who are making problems"}}) or by claiming to have a PHD or by claiming to have other sources when you do not use them. That's not how the process of developing Misplaced Pages works. ] (]) 19:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:21, 19 January 2015
Welcome!
Hello, Aubmn, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Getting Started
- Introduction to Misplaced Pages
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Thomas.W 20:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Babington Plot
Hi, welcome to Misplaced Pages. Your recent edits to the Babington Plot appear to be well written and in good faith, but if they remain unsourced they are liable to be reverted because they materially change the tenets of the article, even though it also suffers from inadequate sourcing. I would advise you to set up your source refernce statements early/soon, then it will not attract attention like this. Good luck, welcome and thanks. Chienlit (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC) (p.s. I will revert my initial (over zealous) reversion until you have finished your current project)
January 2015
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Marie Antoinette. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NebY (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Marie Antoinette
Aubmn, you left a message on my talk page saying that you "reverted part of his work then I took most of his contributions into account" and "a lot of his ideas were taken into consideration". Have you read Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles? Your phrasing, on my talk page and in your edit comments, suggest that you have not and that you think you can be the judge of what is and is not included in the article. That isn't so. If you wish to defend your many additions to the article, then you need to discuss them on the article talk page and reach consensus, not simply revert changes. You will not reach consensus by posting messages on other editors talk pages like the one you posted on mine ("
it seems you have a problem.... you are here making problems.... it is you who are making problems"
) or by claiming to have a PHD or by claiming to have other sources when you do not use them. That's not how the process of developing Misplaced Pages works. NebY (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)