This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Diannaa (talk | contribs) at 23:17, 19 May 2013 (Comments on your edits to Nazi Germany). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:17, 19 May 2013 by Diannaa (talk | contribs) (Comments on your edits to Nazi Germany)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Edit waring
Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. The three-revert rule states:
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation.Moxy (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- We have an informal process that most follow when there is a dispute about content as outlined at Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Please come to the talk page. You may have noticed I agree with one of your edits and would like you to join the talk page on the matter over getting blocked. You may have noticed that I had restored the article to its original version before the content dispute despite agreeing with a portion of your edit - this is because there is a debate about that term thus the article should remain as it was till it is all worked out.Moxy (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Peterzor. I can understand your enthusiasm and your desire to improve the Nazi Germany article. But that's not what's actually happening. Your edit warring to insert factually incorrect and/or grammatically incorrect material into the lede is actually holding up development of the article, because to be promoted to WP:Good Article status, the article will have to be stable, and right now it's not, because of the edit warring. The article would also would fail GA with factually and/or grammatically incorrect material in the lead, so I will have to continue to revert you. As someone who has helped promote quite a few articles to to GA status and has even helped edit Featured Articles, I can tell you that a professional level of English is required for these promotions. Please consider finding some other way to contribute to the encyclopedia. Thank you, -- Dianna (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)