| Revision as of 14:04, 29 September 2006 editThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits Warning← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:33, 29 September 2006 edit undoThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 editsm →Warning: typoNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| ] '''Warning:''' You have violated your ] on ] with these edits . If you revert the article again, you will be blocked for 48 hours. | ] '''Warning:''' You have violated your ] on ] with these edits . If you revert the article again, you will be blocked for 48 hours. | ||
| I am in agreement with Tony Fox's comment on the administrators' noticeboard that this is a content dispute, not simple vandalism. You are arguing over how much the article should focus on the exclusion of one particular band. Evenfiel is not simply blanking the Led Zepplin section, he is rearranging the content and trimming it, but leaving the essential fact . As a content dispute you are expected to negotiate in good faith to arrive at a compromise. If you can not compromise, you should seek outside comment through a ] or ]. You are not permitted to simply revert to your preferred version, and calling a content dispute "vandalism" is not appropriate. I could have blocked you without warning, as you were just blocked 2 days ago for the same thing and you are well aware of the rules. I'm giving you a last chance to figure this out without taking the relatively drastic, but sometimes necessary, step of blocking you. ] 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | I am in agreement with Tony Fox's comment on the administrators' noticeboard that this is a content dispute, not simple vandalism. You are arguing over how much the article should focus on the exclusion of one particular band. Evenfiel is not simply blanking the Led Zepplin section, he is rearranging the content and trimming it, but leaving the essential fact . As a content dispute you are expected to negotiate in good faith to arrive at a compromise. If you can not compromise, you should seek outside comment through a ] or ]. You are not permitted to simply revert to your preferred version, and calling a content dispute "vandalism" is not appropriate. I could have blocked you without warning, as you were just blocked 2 days ago for the same thing and you are well aware of the rules. I'm giving you a last chance to figure this out without taking the relatively drastic, but sometimes necessary, step of blocking you. ] 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:33, 29 September 2006
You have new messages (last change).Old messages will be archived once read, thanks.
Note - Automated bots are not welcome on my talkpage, I consider edits by bots to be spam and will be deleted.
Please feel free to leave a new message!
Warning
I am in agreement with Tony Fox's comment on the administrators' noticeboard that this is a content dispute, not simple vandalism. You are arguing over how much the article should focus on the exclusion of one particular band. Evenfiel is not simply blanking the Led Zepplin section, he is rearranging the content and trimming it, but leaving the essential fact . As a content dispute you are expected to negotiate in good faith to arrive at a compromise. If you can not compromise, you should seek outside comment through a request for comment or third opinion. You are not permitted to simply revert to your preferred version, and calling a content dispute "vandalism" is not appropriate. I could have blocked you without warning, as you were just blocked 2 days ago for the same thing and you are well aware of the rules. I'm giving you a last chance to figure this out without taking the relatively drastic, but sometimes necessary, step of blocking you. Thatcher131 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
| ||
|