User talk:Gsd2000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ~ UBeR 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the honest impression that the 3RR rule applied to the same words, rather than the article as a whole. Two separate incidents occurred on the British Empire page today, which had come up before and the proposed changes that I was reverting were against the consensus. So in retrospect having had this explained to me, I acknowledge breaking the 3RR rule in this case, but for what it's worth, my reverts were in good faith. Gsd2000 22:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. WP:3RR blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive, so your acknowledgement of the rule should keep you in the clear. --Stephan Schulz 22:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom

I have warned the user in question about his 3RR and asked him to revert his latest one. Be cautious as you are at 3RR as well. If he refuses, I will report him. Thanks. MarkThomas 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I think your knowledge of Wikipedia is inadequate, this is an article of "United Kingdom", not the British Empire, which forms a part of it's history, which is where this fact is mentioned. And beware that it is not my liking or yours that determines what goes in here, but facts in the right neutrality. That is the key to working in Wikipedia. Regards,AJ-India 17:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

An opinion you could have discussed on the talk page, instead of doing a 4RR and then disputing it here and with insults on my talk page AJ. MarkThomas 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not an opinion, Mark, the Wikipedia works on rules. See some featured articles, like India, and you will understand how Wikipedia works. This is not a place to over state things to satisfy ones personal feelings. it is an encyclopedia. Hope you understand. Regards. AJ-India 17:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Rules which you have just broken, and have been reported for. Gsd2000 17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am affraid it is you who has broken the 3RR rule. Seeing your page, it is clear this isnt the first time you've done this.AJ-India 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For someone that lectures others on rules, it might be wise to understand them first. My three reverts do not break the 3RR rule. Your four do though. Gsd2000 18:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously your lack of knowledge shows. And like I said, your page indicates your editing history. For a reference, see mine. Would help explain how Wikipedia works. Also see some featured articles (which reflect the best of Wikipedia), which United Kingdom isnt, and will understand why it isnt. Be a mature editor, and avoid adding pompousity and chest thumping material. There are other forums to express these, like blogs. Feel free to do so there. They a meant for that. But an encyclopedia is a place to mention facts in the right place, with the right weight. Once again stating that this is an article on the country United Kingdom, not the British Empire, where these things can be stated (what you repeatedly add)AJ-India 18:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's await the outcome of the 3RR request AJ and then see if you are still editing. If you do get blocked, I would advise being more cautious in throwing insults around like tour "lack of knowledge" one here - GSD2000 has frequently been shown to be a courteous and knowledgeable editor and deserves more respect. You may be right for all I know about your other points, but like I said, they would be better discussed first on the correct talk page rather than doing multiple edit reverts to try to force the matter. MarkThomas 18:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I eagerly await the result Mark. My editing history is there for all to see. The History of United Kingdom itself shows who began the multiple reverts. the "knowledgeable" editor GSD2000. I am mearly responding to the impolite comments on my page, some of which hinted at questioning my neutrity.AJ-India 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any challenges to your neutrality on your talk page, or indeed any remarks at all to do with United Kingdom before you did the 3RR. MarkThomas 18:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"whether you like those relations or not, and I suspect you don't, which is the reason for your removal of it". by User Gsd2000. Also, be informed that my last edit was the 3rd revert. Not 4th. By definition my first revert was after user Gsd2000 reverted my edit. Honestly would have appreciated if you had first understood what was edited, before reverting yourself. I generally edit articles to improve them, not to push views. Again, refer my edit history.AJ-India 18:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)