| Revision as of 22:21, 5 October 2013 editJMHamo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers181,989 edits →October 2013: - Fake warning...← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:36, 5 October 2013 edit undoSpc 21 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,706 edits →October 2013: comment...Next edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be ]. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-ewsoft --> ] (]) 22:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC) | If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be ]. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-ewsoft --> ] (]) 22:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :I haven't.. please don't abuse warning templates. ] (]) 22:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC) | :I haven't.. please don't abuse warning templates. ] (]) 22:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::Well neither have I so don't abuse warning templates on my talk page. Using "as of match played x date" is totally fine and looks so many times better than a random time. And your harassment template is plain childish as you posted it after I had made the huge count of '''one''' edit to your talk page. ] (]) 22:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:36, 5 October 2013
 Archives |
Woodrow
"I've been editing for 8 years now and you less than a month", OK but yet at 16:19, on 11 September 2013 (UTC) seems you made the same 'mistake' as to what I did by "edit-warring" on a Fabregas page.
Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on this, I believe articles are much improved when split into sections, whether short or long, as it's easier to find the information you're looking for, but you however obviously don't. As I said, agree to disagree.
Thanks for the advice, I'll try to keep it in mind for the future.
RyanSkinnerMU (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have not edited Cesc Fàbregas at all during September, so I don't know what you're talking about, but it doesn't matter, glad you can agree to disagree with me. JMHamo (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Stephen Ward
Why did you revert that timestamp? You have been told to stop doing it so why do you keep doing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.134.122 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am continuing this discussion over on your talk page JMHamo (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
IP situation
You two need to seek help at WP:DRN. GiantSnowman 21:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Spc 21 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't.. please don't abuse warning templates. JMHamo (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well neither have I so don't abuse warning templates on my talk page. Using "as of match played x date" is totally fine and looks so many times better than a random time. And your harassment template is plain childish as you posted it after I had made the huge count of one edit to your talk page. Spc 21 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)