| Revision as of 05:55, 10 July 2014 editAnsh666 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,382 edits →Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:44, 11 July 2014 edit undoSluzzelin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers34,743 edits →Blocked from editing: kopf hoch | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ]'']'' 05:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC) | There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ]'']'' 05:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Christ. Any more notices? Am I about to be knighted? Get your act together - if you lot spent half as much time actually answering people's questions as you do whining and reporting and sending out these notices, you might actually get some decent copy on the table, and people wouldn't be wondering why they needed to know the name of the referee in the match before they find out why it has an article. ] (]) 05:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked from editing == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''two days''' for ] and ], 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 the following text below this notice: <!-- 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 ~~~~''}}. However, 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 ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 06:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
| :I'm sorry you were blocked. I understood and sympathized with your argument at ], but, no matter how idiotic you find the counterarguments you're confronted with, you'll be far more persuasive (not to mention less blockable) if you stop calling people names (as well as edit-warring, of course). Cheers, take care (and I'm still freaked out by the 7:1). ---] ] 22:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:44, 11 July 2014
|
if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the July 2014
Your recent editing history at Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) 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. 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. Ansh666 04:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Brazil vs Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup). Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 05:27, 10 July 2014 (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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MarkBM reported by User:Solarra (Result: ). Thank you. ♥ Solarra ♥ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 05:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ansh666 05:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Christ. Any more notices? Am I about to be knighted? Get your act together - if you lot spent half as much time actually answering people's questions as you do whining and reporting and sending out these notices, you might actually get some decent copy on the table, and people wouldn't be wondering why they needed to know the name of the referee in the match before they find out why it has an article. MarkBM (talk) 05:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Blocked from editing
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you were blocked. I understood and sympathized with your argument at WP:ITN/C, but, no matter how idiotic you find the counterarguments you're confronted with, you'll be far more persuasive (not to mention less blockable) if you stop calling people names (as well as edit-warring, of course). Cheers, take care (and I'm still freaked out by the 7:1). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)