| Revision as of 22:50, 25 November 2016 editGovindaharihari (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,872 edits →One revert: new sectionTag: Reverted← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:46, 26 November 2016 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,211 edits →WP:1RR violation at Steve Bannon: new sectionTag: RevertedNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| Hi, that article, S Bannon is at one revert only, if you make two they will apply to have you blocked, I suggest you don't get yourself blocked, it's not worth it. ] (]) 22:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC) | Hi, that article, S Bannon is at one revert only, if you make two they will apply to have you blocked, I suggest you don't get yourself blocked, it's not worth it. ] (]) 22:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC) | ||
| == ] violation at ] == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]To enforce an ] decision you have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours'''. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. <p>If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] (specifically ]) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><span style="font-size:97%;">{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE{{!}}arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN{{!}}administrators' noticeboard]]. ''Your reason here OR place the reason below this template.'' ~~~~}}</span>. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the ] on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (]), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. <hr/><p style="line-height: 90%;"><small>'''Reminder to administrators:''' In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following ] regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."</small></p></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> The full report is at . You broke the 1RR and you've been marking large controversial changes as ]. If you can't edit neutrally on these topics, you are risking a ban under ]. ] (]) 04:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:46, 26 November 2016
There was a time when I loved the idea of Misplaced Pages. I remember thinking how cool it would be to help create a compendium of human knowledge. It even seemed like a noble and worthy pursuit. That is the dream that was envisioned by the founders of Misplaced Pages.
But what I have learned from my experience here is that Misplaced Pages is a fool's game. That is because every liar with an agenda and every fool with a computer has the same vote. And with that vote, they can erase in a day, what took you a week to complete.
For this reason, I would strongly encourage people to stop wasting their time with Misplaced Pages.
- ICarriere
November 2016
Your recent editing history at Steve Bannon 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- This article is subject to 1RR -- see the edit notice when you click on "edit". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me.- MrX 19:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Template:Z33 - MrX 19:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ICarriere reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
One revert
Hi, that article, S Bannon is at one revert only, if you make two they will apply to have you blocked, I suggest you don't get yourself blocked, it's not worth it. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:1RR violation at Steve Bannon
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. You broke the 1RR and you've been marking large controversial changes as minor edits. If you can't edit neutrally on these topics, you are risking a ban under WP:ARBAPDS. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)