| Revision as of 20:47, 10 July 2014 editMalik Shabazz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers106,163 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Blue Army (Poland). (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:56, 2 August 2014 edit undoRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,365 edits →Blue Army RFC: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. 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 ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC) | To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. 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 ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Blue Army RFC == | |||
| I have reviewed my closure of the RFC. The RFC was poorly formed and was not straightforward to close. On the one hand, I am not willing to change the wording of my closure. On the other hand, I am willing to insert a properly formed RFC with Survey and Threaded Discussion sections and leave it open for 30 days, or to have another editor do that. Is that satisfactory? ] (]) 13:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:56, 2 August 2014
July 2014
Your recent editing history at Blue Army (Poland) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 20:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Blue Army RFC
I have reviewed my closure of the RFC. The RFC was poorly formed and was not straightforward to close. On the one hand, I am not willing to change the wording of my closure. On the other hand, I am willing to insert a properly formed RFC with Survey and Threaded Discussion sections and leave it open for 30 days, or to have another editor do that. Is that satisfactory? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)