Misplaced Pages

User talk:Rebroad/Archive 2

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Rebroad

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Notinasnaid (talk | contribs) at 17:47, 4 March 2007 (I removed some of your additions to Adobe Acrobat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:47, 4 March 2007 by Notinasnaid (talk | contribs) (I removed some of your additions to Adobe Acrobat)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Old stuff moved to User talk:Rebroad/Archive 1 --Rebroad 15:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

12 February 2007

You've been blocked for violation the three-revert rule. The edits in question are:

Atlant 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Please read my comments below and give WP:3RR a good read before editing again.

Request handled by: BigDT 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave this one for a more experienced admin to handle, but I do count four reverts:

  • 14:26, February 12, 2007 Rebroad (Talk | contribs | block) (←Undid revision 105809910 by Vsmith (talk) 576,000 google results say otherwise - see talk page)
  • 14:27, February 12, 2007 Rebroad (Talk | contribs | block) (←Undid revision 107562401 by Atlant (talk) - Refer to talk page - there is an ongoing dispute.)
  • 14:45, February 12, 2007 Rebroad (Talk | contribs | block) (until the dispute is resolved, do not delete this tag, as per wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. any further deletions shall be reported.)
  • 15:52, February 12, 2007 Rebroad (Talk | contribs | block) (←Undid revision 107570999 by Atlant (talk) - actually, this is the 3rd)

That said, an involved admin shouldn't have blocked you. --BigDT 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, BigDT. Thanks for taking a look. In the four reverts you mentioned above, the first one was a revert of different material. Of the reverts for the NPOV tag, there were just the 3 you mentioned above. As I understand it, reverts for different content aren't grouped together. Please let me know if I'm incorrect here though. Thanks, --Rebroad 01:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:3RR:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any editor who breaches the rule may be blocked from editing for up to 24 hours in the first instance, and longer for repeated or aggravated violations.

Note that it says nothing about different material. Enjoy your time out. Vsmith 01:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vsmith. Wow. You are indeed correct. This is the first time I'd realised this - I had originally thought they had to be the same revert, so it seems I did indeed perform 4 reverts on that article within 24 hours. I apologise for this, and can say that it certainly won't happen again now that I understand the 3RR more clearly. As the 3RR rule is to prevent edit wars, and I now have a better understanding of the rule and promise not to breach it, please could I be unblocked? Many thanks, --Rebroad 01:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I had already started typing this message and then got edit conflicted. In addition to the passage referenced by Vsmith, please note, "the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an 'electric fence'". Obviously, there are some cases where it is necessary to revert a good faith non-vandalism edit ... but it's a better practice to stay completely away from 3RR. When your revert is reverted, don't revert again - discuss the issue. There is no deadline so if it takes a little time to get it right, that's ok.
Since you were unaware that 3RR applies not just to the same revert, but to any revert, I'm going to go ahead and unblock you. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and since you understand the issue now, there's nothing to prevent. (See WP:BP - "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages and should not be used as a punitive measure.") Please, though, be very careful to tread lightly and when in doubt, discuss the issue. (To any other administrator looking at this, please feel free to reverse me, but make sure that your reason is that there is something to prevent and that it isn't just a punitive block.)--BigDT 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 87.113.75.24 lifted. That's almost comical ... you were unblocked, but your autoblock survives ... go figure.

Request handled by: BigDT 02:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

I completed an editor review of you. YechielMan 02:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Evolution move

Hi! I've replied there. Sorry if I was slightly upset - just we had had a major discussion about the possibility of the move... not all that long ago, and come to the conclusion that it was bes where it was, so a move needing an admin to revert is slightly annoying, without a little consensus building first. =) Adam Cuerden 13:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed some of your additions to Adobe Acrobat

Please see the talk page under . I contend that the information isn't meaningful in its present form because Acrobat is not one product and each product has different disk space requirements. Please do join in the talk. Notinasnaid 17:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)