| Revision as of 17:03, 27 May 2015 edit2602:306:3644:13a0:607c:6c50:5e90:a6f6 (talk) →May 2015← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:04, 27 May 2015 edit undoNeilN (talk | contribs)134,455 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Pamela Geller. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| You're not even addressing the errors in the Pamela Geller entry. All wiki users have a right to edit. | You're not even addressing the errors in the Pamela Geller entry. All wiki users have a right to edit. | ||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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 ]. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] <sup>]</sup> 17:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
Revision as of 17:04, 27 May 2015
May 2015
Please don't remove well-sourced content from articles simply because you don't agree with it. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 16:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC).
The first paragraph is full of redundancies -- mentions "anti-Islam" or "Islamophobic" six times!
- To second Bishonen, please don't remove well-sourced content. Hair 16:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Did you bother to read the entry? The same thing is stated SIX times in the first paragraph. My edit left in four mentions of anti-Islamic activity.
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Pamela Geller, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. The content is well-sourced, please stop removing it. Thank you. Hair 17:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did at Pamela Geller, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Hair 17:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Misplaced Pages, as you did at Pamela Geller. Hair 17:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You're not even addressing the errors in the Pamela Geller entry. All wiki users have a right to edit.
Your recent editing history at Pamela Geller shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.
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. NeilN 17:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.