| Revision as of 21:45, 6 October 2015 editCordless Larry (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators56,689 edits →October 2015: Invited to withdraw← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:48, 6 October 2015 edit undoJoseph2302 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users80,444 edits →October 2015: remove per ANI discussion that wasn't actually neededNext edit → | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
| == October 2015 == | == October 2015 == | ||
| ] This is your '''only warning'''; if you purposefully and blatantly ] a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at ], you may be '''] without further notice'''. ''Claiming that people are sockpuppets simply because they're British is racism, which is not acceptable''<!-- Template:uw-harass4im --> ] (]) 20:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Uk55 wasn't claiming they were socks only on the basis of nationality. I quote: "All have fairly short editing histories (though of course, so do I), all appear to be British, all are making the exact same points, all are very hostile, and all have an uncannily similar writing style". I suggest that you ignore this message, Uk55. ] (]) 21:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | :Uk55 wasn't claiming they were socks only on the basis of nationality. I quote: "All have fairly short editing histories (though of course, so do I), all appear to be British, all are making the exact same points, all are very hostile, and all have an uncannily similar writing style". I suggest that you ignore this message, Uk55. ] (]) 21:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
| Line 90: | Line 89: | ||
| This "warning" was completely inappropriate and should be ignored. -- ] 21:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | This "warning" was completely inappropriate and should be ignored. -- ] 21:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :I have Joseph2302 to withdraw it, ]. ] (]) 21:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | :I have Joseph2302 to withdraw it, ]. ] (]) 21:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::I' | |||
Revision as of 21:48, 6 October 2015
Welcome!
|
October 2015
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
There has been a long standing general consensus at Blu-ray, that the industry standard practice us using frame rates should be used. Occasionally we get a lone editor determined to hammer in the non standard field rates for the interlaced formats. You seem to be a new editor determined to do the same. Although a fourth revert would not be within 24 hours it still counts as edit warring and will likely result in an WP:AN3 complaint which will likely result in you being blocked from editing. 85.255.233.161 (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- @85.255.233.161: I am well aware of the three-revert rule, and am trying to avoid an edit war, but it's made difficult when people like you keep making changes without providing any evidence to support them. In the talk page so far, there are 2 people who agree with you, and two who disagree, so hardly a consensus. Please have this discussion there instead of attempting to chastise me for acting within the the rules.Uk55 (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- 85.255.233.161, can I ask if you usually edit logged in and, if so, what your username is? There aren't many contributions from your IP address. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —Skyllfully | contribs) 20:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.
October 2015
- Uk55 wasn't claiming they were socks only on the basis of nationality. I quote: "All have fairly short editing histories (though of course, so do I), all appear to be British, all are making the exact same points, all are very hostile, and all have an uncannily similar writing style". I suggest that you ignore this message, Uk55. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry: Thanks again. Should I delete, do you think, or is that bad practice? Uk55 (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just leave it for now until the case that I have raised at WP:AN/I is resolved. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry: Thanks again. Should I delete, do you think, or is that bad practice? Uk55 (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This "warning" was completely inappropriate and should be ignored. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have invitedJoseph2302 to withdraw it, TheRedPenOfDoom. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'