| Revision as of 13:09, 30 June 2010 view sourceTreasuryTag (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users46,645 editsm Good.← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:15, 30 June 2010 view source KnowIG (talk | contribs)8,526 edits Undid revision 371005327 by TreasuryTag (talk)naughtyNext edit → | ||
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
| <div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)</div> | <div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' · ] · ] · ] (]) 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)</div> | ||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0054 --> | <!-- EdwardsBot 0054 --> | ||
| == June 2010 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. If the edit warring continues, '''you may be ] from editing''' without further notice. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] 13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:15, 30 June 2010
|
TreasuryTag is currently, or is going to be, away from Misplaced Pages, between April 14 and April 19, 2009, and may not be able to respond immediately to queries. He may, however, edit a little unless he's using the splendid Wikibreak enforcer. |
Just to fix the formatting...
Benjamin Franklin
Painting credit: Joseph Duplessis
Edit warring
Hello TT, you appear to be edit warring on Donna Noble. You're an established editor and you know why edit warring is wrong, so i'll forgo the usual templated warning and just ask you not to do it. As you know, it may result in protection and blocks. Thank you, The Wordsmith 16:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion
This really isn't getting us anywhere. How about rather than continuing to butt heads about the appropriateness of images, we go to Wikiproject:Doctor Who talk and try and thrash out with the entire project a suitable image for each Doctor Who article that currently lacks one BEFORE it's added to the article. What do you think? Exxolon (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm anticipating that each discussion would have to reach a consensus that the image fully satisfied the Misplaced Pages:Non-free content policy BEFORE the image was added - if consensus could not be reached on that point then the image would not be added and an alternative sought. If consensus indicates that NO image satisfies the policy then no image would be added until consensus changed. Exxolon (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going offline now. Please consider my response to your objection to my suggestion. Reply on my talk, I will respond tomorrow. Exxolon (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies for delay - my internet access is sporadic at this time - I have replied on both FFD discussions with a proposal that I hope will lead to a productive result. Please visit and reply to either/both posts at your convenience. Exxolon (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 28 June 2010
- Objectionable material: Board resolution on offensive content
- In the news: Misplaced Pages controlled by pedophiles, left-wing trolls, Islamofascists and Communist commandos?
- Public Policy Initiative: Introducing the Public Policy Initiative
- WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Ships
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
June 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Amy Pond. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TFOWR 13:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)