Misplaced Pages

User talk:Rcronk: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:21, 17 June 2008 editSteve Smith (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,250 edits Maxine Waters and WP:3RR: clarification← Previous edit Revision as of 22:21, 17 June 2008 edit undoSteve Smith (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,250 editsm Maxine Waters and WP:3RR: spellingNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:


Just a friendly reminder, in case you weren't aware, that reverting on ] once more will result in a violation of ] on your part. Cheers, ] (]) 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Just a friendly reminder, in case you weren't aware, that reverting on ] once more will result in a violation of ] on your part. Cheers, ] (]) 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
:To clarify, the above was quite sincerely intended to be friendly. The three revert rule exists for a good reason, and I fully support blocking people who violate it, but I've also seen a lot of people get blocked for violating it without even knowing that the rule existed. I wanted to make sure you knew about the rule before you violated it, because you seem like a good faith editor. As for your comment that you're not sure whether others have been warned, I didn't see anybody else who had reverted three times in a twenty-four hour period. If I did, and if I thought it possible that they were unaware of the rule (FCYTravis, for example, I wouldn't bother warning, because he's an experienced admin who definitely knows about the rule - but I'd still report him if he violated it), I would have warned them to. Cheers, ] (]) 22:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC) :To clarify, the above was quite sincerely intended to be friendly. The three revert rule exists for a good reason, and I fully support blocking people who violate it, but I've also seen a lot of people get blocked for violating it without even knowing that the rule existed. I wanted to make sure you knew about the rule before you violated it, because you seem like a good faith editor. As for your comment that you're not sure whether others have been warned, I didn't see anybody else who had reverted three times in a twenty-four hour period. If I did, and if I thought it possible that they were unaware of the rule (FCYTravis, for example, I wouldn't bother warning, because he's an experienced admin who definitely knows about the rule - but I'd still report him if he violated it), I would have warned them too. Cheers, ] (]) 22:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:21, 17 June 2008

Maxine Waters and WP:3RR

Just a friendly reminder, in case you weren't aware, that reverting on Maxine Waters once more will result in a violation of WP:3RR on your part. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the above was quite sincerely intended to be friendly. The three revert rule exists for a good reason, and I fully support blocking people who violate it, but I've also seen a lot of people get blocked for violating it without even knowing that the rule existed. I wanted to make sure you knew about the rule before you violated it, because you seem like a good faith editor. As for your comment that you're not sure whether others have been warned, I didn't see anybody else who had reverted three times in a twenty-four hour period. If I did, and if I thought it possible that they were unaware of the rule (FCYTravis, for example, I wouldn't bother warning, because he's an experienced admin who definitely knows about the rule - but I'd still report him if he violated it), I would have warned them too. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)