| Revision as of 00:36, 20 October 2015 editMandruss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users64,625 edits →DuBose weapon relevance← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:14, 20 October 2015 edit undoMandruss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users64,625 edits Caution: Unconstructive editing on Shooting of Michael DuBose. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == DuBose weapon relevance == | == DuBose weapon relevance == | ||
| Re , how is it relevant that the weapon was that model to the exclusion of others? Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. If the model had some particular bearing on the case, it would be relevant. In any case, per ], if you disagree with a revert, the correct action is to seek consensus for your change on the article's talk page. While the first revert (mine in this case) is routine process, re-reverting is the start of an ], which violates Misplaced Pages policy and can result in sanctions. Another editor has reverted your re-revert to return the article to its correct state, its ''status quo ante''; please do not revert again without consensus. The article's talk page is at ]. Thank you. ―] ] 00:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC) | Re , how is it relevant that the weapon was that model to the exclusion of others? Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. If the model had some particular bearing on the case, it would be relevant. In any case, per ], if you disagree with a revert, the correct action is to seek consensus for your change on the article's talk page. While the first revert (mine in this case) is routine process, re-reverting is the start of an ], which violates Misplaced Pages policy and can result in sanctions. Another editor has reverted your re-revert to return the article to its correct state, its ''status quo ante''; please do not revert again without consensus. The article's talk page is at ]. Thank you. ―] ] 00:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == October 2015 == | |||
| ] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. Your edits appear to be ] and have been ] or removed. | |||
| * If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ]. | |||
| * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ]. | |||
| Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's ], and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in ]. ''You had no interest in the coords or distance information until well into the discussion about the completely unrelated gun model. To suddenly develop such an interest is the definition of ] behavior. This continues your pattern of disruptive behavior in the past hour or so at this article. Please stop before you find yourself reponding to a ] complaint at ], which could result in a sanction. Thank you. ''<!-- Template:uw-disruptive2 --> ―] ] 03:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
Revision as of 03:14, 20 October 2015
DuBose weapon relevance
Re this revert, how is it relevant that the weapon was that model to the exclusion of others? Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. If the model had some particular bearing on the case, it would be relevant. In any case, per WP:BRD, if you disagree with a revert, the correct action is to seek consensus for your change on the article's talk page. While the first revert (mine in this case) is routine process, re-reverting is the start of an edit war, which violates Misplaced Pages policy and can result in sanctions. Another editor has reverted your re-revert to return the article to its correct state, its status quo ante; please do not revert again without consensus. The article's talk page is at Talk:Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Shooting of Michael DuBose. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. You had no interest in the coords or distance information until well into the discussion about the completely unrelated gun model. To suddenly develop such an interest is the definition of WP:POINTy behavior. This continues your pattern of disruptive behavior in the past hour or so at this article. Please stop before you find yourself reponding to a disruptive editing complaint at WP:ANI, which could result in a sanction. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.