| Revision as of 21:48, 10 October 2005 edit195.40.196.140 (talk) remove comments made by an admin who knows little of WP policy - and nothing on how to edit an article← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:50, 10 October 2005 edit undoHappyCamper (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,078 editsm Reverted edits by 195.40.196.140 to last version by JdavidbNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{:User:Jguk/Archives}} | {{:User:Jguk/Archives}} | ||
| == Dates on ] == | |||
| You are repeatedly reverting the dates on ]. Please note that if you violate the ] policy you can be blocked immediately with no further warnings. But even more importantly, you are violating the intent of Misplaced Pages. There has not been a discussion about the dates on the article talk page. It is clear from the edit history that more users support the other version, not yours. It is not right for you to continually revert the article when a consensus has not been reached on the talk page, especially since you appear to be in the minority. If you want this change, you should propose it on the talk page and then make it only if your proposal achieves consensus. Otherwise you are being disruptive and other users are within reason to bring dispute resolution procedures against you. This can result in your editing privileges being restricted or revoked. | |||
| Please do not make this change again until you have obtained consensus on the article talk page. ] ] 19:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR == | |||
| I appreciate that you are not trying to "game" the three revert rule, but you should take note of the spirit behind the policy. It's not helpful for you to repeatedly revert anything without bringing it to discussion on the talk page, whether you perform three reverts in a 24 hour period or not. If you find yourself reverted, you should insist on bringing up the discussion on the talk page. Show your willingness to compromise, and your willingness to accept consensus. Otherwise people will just blindly revert you back, and it does not help. If you'll take the moral high ground and ask for discussion on the talk page, you'll be more likely to get an edit approved that will address your concerns. ] ] 20:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Stop it == | |||
| It is not appropriate for you to remove my comments from your talk page. If you would like to respond and indicate that the issues are being addressed, that is great, but do not remove comments from the page, particularly when you already have an archiving system. If you'd like to review policy on this, check out ]: "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings," and "keep in mind that your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose." In addition, please be aware that I do not interpret removing my warnings to you as appropriate given that I am an administrator warning you about policy. ] ] 21:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked for violation of ] == | |||
| {{3RR3}} ] ] 21:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Your talk page == | |||
| You can continue to edit your talk page if you want to discuss this, but if you continue to remove these warnings, I will protect the page. ] ] 21:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:50, 10 October 2005
Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12
Dates on Jerusalem
You are repeatedly reverting the dates on Jerusalem. Please note that if you violate the three revert rule policy you can be blocked immediately with no further warnings. But even more importantly, you are violating the intent of Misplaced Pages. There has not been a discussion about the dates on the article talk page. It is clear from the edit history that more users support the other version, not yours. It is not right for you to continually revert the article when a consensus has not been reached on the talk page, especially since you appear to be in the minority. If you want this change, you should propose it on the talk page and then make it only if your proposal achieves consensus. Otherwise you are being disruptive and other users are within reason to bring dispute resolution procedures against you. This can result in your editing privileges being restricted or revoked.
Please do not make this change again until you have obtained consensus on the article talk page. Jdavidb (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
3RR
I appreciate that you are not trying to "game" the three revert rule, but you should take note of the spirit behind the policy. It's not helpful for you to repeatedly revert anything without bringing it to discussion on the talk page, whether you perform three reverts in a 24 hour period or not. If you find yourself reverted, you should insist on bringing up the discussion on the talk page. Show your willingness to compromise, and your willingness to accept consensus. Otherwise people will just blindly revert you back, and it does not help. If you'll take the moral high ground and ask for discussion on the talk page, you'll be more likely to get an edit approved that will address your concerns. Jdavidb (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Stop it
It is not appropriate for you to remove my comments from your talk page. If you would like to respond and indicate that the issues are being addressed, that is great, but do not remove comments from the page, particularly when you already have an archiving system. If you'd like to review policy on this, check out Misplaced Pages:Talk_page#User_talk_pages: "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings," and "keep in mind that your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose." In addition, please be aware that I do not interpret removing my warnings to you as appropriate given that I am an administrator warning you about policy. Jdavidb (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Blocked for violation of WP:3RR
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jdavidb (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Your talk page
You can continue to edit your talk page if you want to discuss this, but if you continue to remove these warnings, I will protect the page. Jdavidb (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)