Revision as of 05:33, 28 May 2010 editWildhartlivie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,910 edits →Cher← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:35, 28 May 2010 edit undoWildhartlivie (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,910 edits Warning: Potentially violating the three revert rule on Cher. (TW)Next edit → | ||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Dude, please stop removing the article content on ]. You are now removing it without bothering to offer an explanation. Please try to grasp that Cher had separate contracts for Warner Bros. UK and for Warner Bros. US. They are not the same, she contracted with one branch and then contracted with the other. Please try to grasp that there is no valid rationale for removing her artist's link at Warner Bros. website and there is no valid rationale for removing her offically saactioned fan club site. ou are obstinately refusing to further discuss it and you just stopped responding although you failed to give proper rationale for your POV. This has to stop, it is improper to remove valid content and if you do not desist from the removal, we weill go right back to the 3RR noticeboard. The only reason you weren't blocked for the initial edits was because it wasn't possible since your IP is dynamic. It would be regrettable for you to end up blocked when all you are doing at this point is continuing to edit war for your POV version. STOP so you don't end up reported again. | Dude, please stop removing the article content on ]. You are now removing it without bothering to offer an explanation. Please try to grasp that Cher had separate contracts for Warner Bros. UK and for Warner Bros. US. They are not the same, she contracted with one branch and then contracted with the other. Please try to grasp that there is no valid rationale for removing her artist's link at Warner Bros. website and there is no valid rationale for removing her offically saactioned fan club site. ou are obstinately refusing to further discuss it and you just stopped responding although you failed to give proper rationale for your POV. This has to stop, it is improper to remove valid content and if you do not desist from the removal, we weill go right back to the 3RR noticeboard. The only reason you weren't blocked for the initial edits was because it wasn't possible since your IP is dynamic. It would be regrettable for you to end up blocked when all you are doing at this point is continuing to edit war for your POV version. STOP so you don't end up reported again. | ||
== May 2010 == | |||
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''I gave you ample opportunity to respond at the talk page and you have persisted and don't even bother to post a reason in the edit summary. I am reporting you to the same administrator who semi-protected the article to consider your behavior on this article. Desist. '' ] (]) 05:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:35, 28 May 2010
Hello from Nick
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! ~ thesublime514 • talk • sign 21:03, April 8, 2007 (UTC)
Cher
Oh, hi. I see you did return. I've commented in that ANI thread about Cher and have glossed the talk page discussion. If you would like to see your edits incorporated into the article, it will require yet more discussion and patience. Reverting everything back and forth is not helpful, by anyone. The best route forward is likely to be item-by-item, so consider that approach. The English Misplaced Pages can be a nasty place; we call it the Toxic Wiki. But things can be worked out of all seek the appropriate outcome. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Dude, please stop removing the article content on Cher. You are now removing it without bothering to offer an explanation. Please try to grasp that Cher had separate contracts for Warner Bros. UK and for Warner Bros. US. They are not the same, she contracted with one branch and then contracted with the other. Please try to grasp that there is no valid rationale for removing her artist's link at Warner Bros. website and there is no valid rationale for removing her offically saactioned fan club site. ou are obstinately refusing to further discuss it and you just stopped responding although you failed to give proper rationale for your POV. This has to stop, it is improper to remove valid content and if you do not desist from the removal, we weill go right back to the 3RR noticeboard. The only reason you weren't blocked for the initial edits was because it wasn't possible since your IP is dynamic. It would be regrettable for you to end up blocked when all you are doing at this point is continuing to edit war for your POV version. STOP so you don't end up reported again.
May 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cher. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. I gave you ample opportunity to respond at the talk page and you have persisted and don't even bother to post a reason in the edit summary. I am reporting you to the same administrator who semi-protected the article to consider your behavior on this article. Desist. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)