| Revision as of 15:27, 5 January 2013 edit190.46.98.195 (talk) →January 2013← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:29, 5 February 2023 edit undoBD2412 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators2,449,965 editsm blank ancient IP talk page messagesTags: AWB Replaced | ||
| (53 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| ==December 2012== | |||
| Please read ], particularly the section on "Edit summary dos and don'ts", and act accordingly. ] (]) 09:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===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 ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 18:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] 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 --> ] (]) 18:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Before you get blocked for a combination of edit warring, disruptive editing, and incivility, please read the policy on using reliable sources, and then you'll understand why is not an invalid POV claim, and not a valid reason for reversion. ] (]) 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I can find sources that say that Sergeant Pepper is the Beatle's best album. I can find sources that say that War and Peace is the best book ever written. I can find sources that say that British Airways is the world's favourite airline. Putting those claims directly into an article, in the voice of the encyclopaedia, violates NPOV. If you can't understand that, you really shouldn't be editing. You are edit-warring to force blatantly biased material into the encyclopaedia, and that's a very silly thing to do. ] (]) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 23:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. - ] (]) 00:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| I find it scarcely believable that people will go to such lengths as block someone to prevent the enforcement of a core policy. It's simple to understand and very obvious that "best known for" is an opinion. I can hardly even comprehend that someone would edit war to enforce this obviously wrong wording, still less that the party enforcing the policy correctly would get blocked. ] (]) 04:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == January 2013 == | |||
| ] Please stop your ], as you did at ]. Your edits have been ] or removed. | |||
| * If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ]. | |||
| * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ]. | |||
| Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being ].<!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 --> ] (]) 07:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Incidentally, ] contains multiple references and statements in the lead to it being the best film ever made - be a dear and pop over there to remove them would you? Thanks. ] (]) 07:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I really didn't think I was making a subtle, difficult point about Citizen Kane but it looks like you missed it anyway. The article does not state that it's the best film ever made. It states that it has been described by many critics as the best film ever made. The former is opinion, the latter is fact. If you seriously can't understand this, it's no wonder you're doing so much damage. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:29, 5 February 2023
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.