This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Keri (talk | contribs) at 00:30, 21 June 2015 (Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Pam Reynolds case. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:30, 21 June 2015 by Keri (talk | contribs) (Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Pam Reynolds case. (TW))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)June 2015
Your recent editing history at Pam Reynolds case 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. Keri (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)