| Revision as of 03:01, 27 September 2006 editTony Fox (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers20,644 edits →Your post on the Help Desk: - you're welcome← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:25, 28 September 2006 edit undoEvenfiel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,835 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Reply== | |||
| What does the old edit have to do with anything?... new information has come to light and been worked into the article (all heavily sourced, with reliable links I might add), which you continue to blank, | |||
| As I explained before; removing edits which fall under ] such as ].. is stated in the ] as an outlined exception to revert limitations and does not count as an actual revert, so I'm not in violation of anything by removing blanking. - ] 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Your post on the Help Desk == | |||
| Hey there. I left a note on the Help Desk about your problem on the ] article, but wasn't sure if you'd seen it. You may want to pop over to the ] and ask for someone to take a look at it. I think it might benefit from a ] to get more eyes on it as well, but an admin might want to look it over, as I believe he's still under Arbitration parole after ]. ] <small>]</small> 01:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''Sure, I'll report you'' | |||
| :You're welcome for the tip on the noticeboard - sorry to see you got dinged, but Thatcher's correct on the ] rules. I wasn't thinking 3RR looking over the issue at hand. Do keep that in mind for future issues, though, and good luck with the editing. Cheers. ] <small>]</small> 03:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| For what? As I showed using the official Misplaced Pages policy, I'm not in violation of anything, feel free. It is '''you''' who are violating the editing policy by blanking articles. - ] 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked == | |||
| {| class="user-block" | |||
| || ] | |||
| || You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the ]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. | |||
| |}<!-- Template:3RR5 --> | |||
| While Deathrocker violated his revert parole, you also broke the 3 revert rule. Edit warring is never the right way to solve a dispute over content. ] 02:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:25, 28 September 2006
Reply
What does the old edit have to do with anything?... new information has come to light and been worked into the article (all heavily sourced, with reliable links I might add), which you continue to blank,
As I explained before; removing edits which fall under simple vandalism such as article blanking.. is stated in the official editing policy as an outlined exception to revert limitations and does not count as an actual revert, so I'm not in violation of anything by removing blanking. - Deathrocker 16:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll report you
For what? As I showed using the official Misplaced Pages policy, I'm not in violation of anything, feel free. It is you who are violating the editing policy by blanking articles. - Deathrocker 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)