| Revision as of 06:43, 12 February 2010 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,210 edits →Edit War: Thanks← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:54, 22 June 2010 edit undoJstanierm (talk | contribs)301 editsm ←Blanked the page | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==] case== | |||
| {| align="left" | |||
| || ] | |||
| |} | |||
| You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ''']]''' 06:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit War == | |||
| Well, the thing about reverts is that you have to check to make sure a given edit was actually a revert, not a new edit. A really handy tool for this is Popups, which you can enable through the Gadgets section of your Preferences. Go to the article history page and hold your mouse over the "Prev" link of the revisions. If Person A adds something, and Person B removes it, that's a clear revert. Sometimes you'll see Person A add something, a Bot changes something else, and Person B removes what Person A did... this won't appear in the individual diff, so you need the big picture for something like that. | |||
| Of course, some edits show Person A adding something and Person B removing something else, which isn't necessarily a revert. --] 02:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for filing the 3RR report. The case turned out to be very confusing, since at least two and perhaps three of the recent editors have a ]. There are also some ] problems. The person, NatGertler, against whom you filed the complaint was the one who understood Misplaced Pages policy best. It turns out that ] is the one who should cause us the most concern now, and I hope he will get the message and follow our policies. ] (]) 06:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC) | |||