This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MastCell (talk | contribs) at 20:05, 12 November 2007 (→wp:3rr again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:05, 12 November 2007 by MastCell (talk | contribs) (→wp:3rr again)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)An Inconvenient Truth
Elhector has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Wow, that talk page is a warzone :-P Elhector 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:3RR
Hi GoRight! As far as I can tell, you have either already violated Misplaced Pages's 3 revert rule, or are very close to a violation on An Inconvenient Truth. The rule is intended to limit unproductive reversions by restricting editors to no more than 3 reverts per article per 24 hours, where a "revert" is defined broadly as any edit that at least partially undoes another editors work. In particular, a revert for this rule does not have to restore an older version, and reverts that undo different edits still count towards the limit. If you did not already do so, please read this rule and abide by it - preferably in letter and in spirit. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at An Inconvenient Truth. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.You've made at least 4 reverts in the past few hours (, , , , and a partial revert here which undid part of the prior edit). You express familiarity with WP:3RR here. It should be clear that there is no consensus supporting your proposed changes; please discuss them on the talk page after the block expires rather than continuing to reinsert them. MastCell 22:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).GoRight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do not believe that my edits constitute reverts in the sense intended by WP:3RR. In each case I actively provided commentary in the discussion page concerning my rational for the changes thus demonstrating my willingness to cooperate with the community. Also, a close inspection of my edits will reveal that I was, in fact, making alternate wordings in an attempt to accommodate the views of others while still presenting the material I feel was relevant to the article. In addition, all of my material was clearly sourced and as such should be allowed in the article. If my interpretation above is incorrect, please clarify what actually constitutes a revert under WP:3R. Does changing the wording to accommodate the views of other editors also constitute a reversion? Is merely touching a given section of text considered a revert? For example, the item you list as a partial revert is did not restore any of the original content at all but was merely a new edit.
Decline reason:
The idea behind 3RR is to prevent people from repeated edits that make the same point or convey the same information. I have reviewed your edits and you repeatedly inserted references to anthropogenic leanings. Please be more careful and if you find yourself inserting or deleting similar language repeatedly, go to the talk page and discuss it there first.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
-- But|seriously|folks 05:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The Zen Garden Award
Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience | ||
I award this to GoRight for the infinite patience he has shown while attempting to improve the An Inconvenient Truth article and also for having to deal with the above ban because of his efforts. Elhector 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC) |
You can move this award to your main user page or wherever else you like :-) Elhector 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate it. I haven't given up on the AIT page but have been focusing on other topics for a while. --GoRight 01:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Smoke and some sort of fire
There are traces of Singer's fire which others aren't willing to examine. I'm not in a hurry so it will take several days for the address of the info to reach me, then I'll probably have the search space reduced by 98%. (SEWilco 03:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC))
wp:3rr again
looks like you close to breaking the rule again if you not done so already so watch it on the article An Inconvenient TruthOo7565 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I have been careful about which sections I am touching. I am done for now anyway. --GoRight 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks again, a second look on my part indicated that I had erred so I self-reverted. --GoRight 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- If I may... it seems there's an ongoing problem here. It was good of you to self-revert, but the underlying issue appears to be that you're making changes without consensus and thus being reverted by a number of different users. The point of WP:3RR is not to wait for 24 hours to expire and then keep going; it's to discuss these changes on the talk page before repeatedly re-inserting them. You will find peope willing to engage in dialog; if you hit a roadblock, you can always ask for a third opinion, request for comment, or mediation. But please consider holding off on repeatedly reverting without gaining some sort of consensus for your proposed changes, which appear quite controversial. MastCell 20:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)