| Revision as of 15:56, 29 November 2011 editRuhrfisch (talk | contribs)Administrators52,174 edits 3rr← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:56, 29 November 2011 edit undoRuhrfisch (talk | contribs)Administrators52,174 edits →Three revert rule warning: forgot to signNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. You may still be blocked for ] even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> | If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. You may still be blocked for ] even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> | ||
| ] ''']''' 15:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:56, 29 November 2011
Peter O'Toole
Howdy, you're a bit behind. My change was made & was self-reverted, all on November 18. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- And, I might add (to Sheodred), you may want to read WP:DTTR. Unless you were trying to make some sort of point. In that case, read WP:POINT. freshacconci talktalk 16:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ok no problem sorry about that. Sheodred (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Advice
Ok, so you have an ANI, a now-closed 3RR report ... you've been chastised for not following policy on proper escalation, and calls for WP:BOOMERANG. Can you take a step back, breathe deeply, and recognize that although you feel you're doing the right thing, you're actually causing more disruption than the other user? Step back - breathe - focus. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Concur, Sheodred get in touch if you get frustrated and I'll help. All that happens if you fire up like this is that people get into a "plague on both your houses" mood. The community will eventually deal with disruptive editors, particularly those who try and make up policy. However they need to be given time and space and if you are one of the protagonists, stand back. --Snowded 20:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, I apologise, I should have followed policy but the red mist decended, I will take a little break, just to calm down. Sheodred (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Three revert rule warning
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Ruhrfisch ><>° 15:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)