This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HostBot (talk | contribs) at 14:21, 23 March 2018 (→Petitic, you are invited to the Teahouse!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:21, 23 March 2018 by HostBot (talk | contribs) (→Petitic, you are invited to the Teahouse!: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)bye
Violation of DS restrictions and edit warring
You have just violated the following restriction:
- "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."
See the conditions at the top of Talk:Trump campaign–Russian meetings. Your restoration can also be seen as edit warring, so here's a template which explains that:
Your recent editing history at Talk:Trump campaign–Russian meetings 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. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- As required by the rules, I will report this incident, but will request leniency for you because you are presumably new here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- The complaint is registered here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 07:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
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.Template:Z33 Politrukki (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Petitic, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi Petitic! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 14:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC) |