| Revision as of 13:56, 2 August 2014 editRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,133 edits →Blue Army RFC: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:45, 2 August 2014 edit undoRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,133 edits →Blue Army RFC: Comment - moreNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| 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) | 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) | ||
| ::You asked me to change the wording of the close. I considered doing that, although it violates the statement in the box that the discussion is closed, as per ]. I concluded that either the close can be left as is, or a new RFC is in order. Your call. ] (]) 14:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::By the way, ] is in ] as usually noted. This means that ArbCom ] are available for disruptive editing. If you think that another editor is being disruptive or tendentious, you can apply the discretionary sanctions warning to their talk page, <nowiki> {{subst:Ds/alert|ee}} </nowiki>. ] (]) 14:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Do you want a new RFC, or do you want to leave alone, or do you want to request closure review at ]? I don't plan to change the wording of the close. ] (]) 14:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:45, 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)
- You asked me to change the wording of the close. I considered doing that, although it violates the statement in the box that the discussion is closed, as per ignore all rules. I concluded that either the close can be left as is, or a new RFC is in order. Your call. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, Poland is in Eastern Europe as usually noted. This means that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are available for disruptive editing. If you think that another editor is being disruptive or tendentious, you can apply the discretionary sanctions warning to their talk page, {{subst:Ds/alert|ee}} . Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Do you want a new RFC, or do you want to leave alone, or do you want to request closure review at WP:AN? I don't plan to change the wording of the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, Poland is in Eastern Europe as usually noted. This means that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are available for disruptive editing. If you think that another editor is being disruptive or tendentious, you can apply the discretionary sanctions warning to their talk page, {{subst:Ds/alert|ee}} . Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- You asked me to change the wording of the close. I considered doing that, although it violates the statement in the box that the discussion is closed, as per ignore all rules. I concluded that either the close can be left as is, or a new RFC is in order. Your call. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)