| Revision as of 22:33, 3 March 2006 editTariqabjotu (talk | contribs)Administrators36,354 edits + comment on 3RR← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:42, 3 March 2006 edit undoTariqabjotu (talk | contribs)Administrators36,354 edits + repliesNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| Engaging in an edit war is not the correct way to resolve a dispute. Your fervent reverts in the ] violate the ]. Instead of reverting the page, post your comment on the appropriate ]. Continuing to engage in the acts prescribed could result in a block. ] 22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC) | Engaging in an edit war is not the correct way to resolve a dispute. Your fervent reverts in the ] violate the ]. Instead of reverting the page, post your comment on the appropriate ]. Continuing to engage in the acts prescribed could result in a block. ] 22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| : I don't think I did a 3RR vio. I reverted twice . I also did a large edit where I removed a bunch of nonsense , but that's not a revert, and even if it is, that's still a total of 3. Did I count incorrectly? Thanks. ] 22:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Yes, you are correct; my mistake. ] 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:42, 3 March 2006
User_talk:Phr/Archive-2006-02-20
Three-Revert Rule
Engaging in an edit war is not the correct way to resolve a dispute. Your fervent reverts in the Edward G. Winter violate the three-revert rule. Instead of reverting the page, post your comment on the appropriate talk page. Continuing to engage in the acts prescribed could result in a block. joturner 22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think I did a 3RR vio. I reverted twice . I also did a large edit where I removed a bunch of nonsense , but that's not a revert, and even if it is, that's still a total of 3. Did I count incorrectly? Thanks. Phr 22:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct; my mistake. joturner 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)