Revision as of 03:54, 25 October 2014 editAndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,013 edits →Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion: warning← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:22, 25 October 2014 edit undoCallmemirela (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,024 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Villa Grove, Illinois. (TW)Next edit → | ||
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
:Further to this, you should note that deleting a thread concerning you on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is a sure-fire way to get yourself blocked from editing - possibly indefinitely. ] (]) 03:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | :Further to this, you should note that deleting a thread concerning you on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is a sure-fire way to get yourself blocked from editing - possibly indefinitely. ] (]) 03:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
== October 2014 == | |||
] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, 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. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
'''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.{{Break}}''You are engaging yourself in edit warring. Stop it. You are being reverted for obvious reasons, but you don't comprehend your actions in reverting.''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 04:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:22, 25 October 2014
Welcome!
|
Notability of persons
Thank you for your interest in Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages:Notability (people) contains the inclusion criterion for people on wikipedia. Based on past history in dealing with local media personalities, on local radio stations and small market television generally those people generally don't meet the requirements for inclusion. You need multiple national sources that show the contributions of the person to their field. Co-hosting a radio show in central Illinois is not enough to warrant inclusion. I noticed your draft article about the subject, and I doubt that the article will be accepted for the reasons I just stated. Sorry. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Additionally, there is no reason to include a list of people who live in a village or city. Please discontinue attempting to start such a list at Villa Grove, Illinois. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thanks. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
You might want to work on your draft article Draft:Lon Tay instead of deleting references and blindly undoing other edits so you can make a "notable" persons list in a village article. That draft article is going to be rejected by another editor without better references. As a point of comparison, WCIA news anchor Dave Benton's article was recently deleted due to lack of notability. If a local TV anchor is not notable enough for his own wikipedia article, there is pretty much no way a local radio host's article is going to be approved. Trust me, I've been doing this on and off for 8+ years. In it's current state, it's not going to be approved. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
MichaelHolmes36, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Hi MichaelHolmes36! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Misplaced Pages; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
Villa Grove
Please do not engage in edit warring. If you do, you may be blocked. Omnedon (talk) 03:27, 25 October 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. Thank you.
- Further to this, you should note that deleting a thread concerning you on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is a sure-fire way to get yourself blocked from editing - possibly indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014
Your recent editing history at Villa Grove, Illinois shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, 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.
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.
You are engaging yourself in edit warring. Stop it. You are being reverted for obvious reasons, but you don't comprehend your actions in reverting. Callmemirela (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)