Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:38, 10 March 2010

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Three revert rule.

Your recent edits to Ilana Mercer, which I reverted twice, broke the named cites later in the article. Your edit history suggests that you are on some kind of a crusade against WND as a source. Probably not a good start, but you are still welcome and I hope you become a useful editor someday. Meanwhile, it is incumbent on you to edit in a way which does not break the articles you "improve." Please be more careful.

Speaking of 3RR (our 3RR rule, since you also edit here), you should read again. 3RR "allows" three reverts to an article in a 24 hour period. The fourth revert would trigger the bright line violation. You might get blocked for edit warring without crossing that line, but not 3RR. Celestra (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I only edited twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 March 2010

That is not quite true, you edited three times, but only reverted twice. (BTW - Full colons (:) at the start of a line indent that line. Four tildes (~~~~) create a signature. Please use these to promote better understanding of who is saying what in a discussion.

WRT your comments about a "fictional" MoS, the MoS is not fictional, but I didn't mention the MoS. Do your efforts take precedence over keeping the article in an unbroken state? I think most reasonable editors would say that maintaining the article in an unbroken state would always take precedence over a dispute about sources. But there is no reason to debate the relative priority, just be more careful. If the reference you are removing is 'named', if it has the form "<ref name=XYZ>blah blah blah</ref>", search for other uses of the form "<ref name=XYZ />" and remove them as well.

WRT to asking for help with the "fight," this is not a battleground, please don't try to make it a battleground. You made an edit which removed a reference and left the article broken. I chose to revert your edit to fix the article and direct you to the appropriate forum to discuss the issue. Now that I know you are discussing the matter there and on the talk page, I will be happy with whatever consensus is finally reached, as you should be. Celestra (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Why am I being targeted here? Jon Osterman (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Get over this "I'm a target" junk. Read the response in ANI. I clearly said starting the discussion at RSN was the right thing to do. What I have an issue with is that you jumped the gun and started your seek and destroy mission. I truly don't believe that you are looking at the links objectively, based on how you've responded, to see if they are one of those instances where WND can be used as a source. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• You are harassing me. I'm not looking objectively, I scoff. You are also flat swiftboating me as seen here. I did look at all the months and years of review of RS on WND. Time after time after time after time they said its not RS. So you get over it and back off before you get in trouble.