| Revision as of 22:21, 17 June 2008 editSteve Smith (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,250 editsm →Maxine Waters and WP:3RR: spelling← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:24, 19 June 2008 edit undoRcronk (talk | contribs)197 edits →Maxine Waters and WP:3RRNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| 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 too. 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) | ||
| ::No problem - I thought the "cheers" was funny and I appreciate the warning.] (]) 15:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:24, 19 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)
- No problem - I thought the "cheers" was funny and I appreciate the warning.Rcronk (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)