| Revision as of 02:57, 26 June 2022 editGoodDay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers494,059 edits →June 2022Tag: Reverted← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:40, 26 June 2022 edit undoSkyring (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,595 edits Restored revision 1093318218 by Skyring (talk): Clear the spaceTags: Twinkle Replaced UndoNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} | {{archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} | ||
| == Your draft == | |||
| Hey there, you may have accidentally created Draft:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Indigenous place names in draft space rather than user/project space? Cheers ] (]) 09:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :No. Read it, hmm? --] (]) 10:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == June 2022 == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 02:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| *Please note you have ''already'' broken ]. I highly suggest you take it to the talk page and stop edit-warring; it's clear your edit is contentious, saying "discussion is closed" over and over like you have any authority in that matter does not change that.. You don't. - ] (]) 02:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| *I see consensus. We decided to close this two days ago. When edit-warring broke out over implementing consensus because the issue hadn't been formally closed, I formally closed it. As per procedure. At that point, edit-warring over a closure is not the way to go. Follow process. Please. --] (]) 02:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Barring an avalanche of Option A supporters in the next few days, it's highly likely that Option B is going to be adopted. If that's so? I hope your version of Option B will be the one. In the meantime, wouldn't it be best to just let the RFC run it's course? It's not worth getting yourself blocked over, is it? ] (]) 02:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :See above. --] (]) 02:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::You've made 4 reverts within an hour. It's not worth getting blocked over. Let the RFC run its course. Then I'll ask for closure at the proper page, with a neutrally worded request. I've done'em before. ] (]) 02:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:40, 26 June 2022
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |