23:
83:
I don't see how I'd be responsible for any of that, as I (together with many more collaborating users) have been adding LOTS of content to the page, while the other (anonymous) user is simply vandalizing it, without replying or discussing anything. I was wondering if he/she'd be allowed to continue
65:, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Knowledge is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a
42:
another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on
Knowledge this is usually seen as obstructing the
61:. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the
66:
58:
35:
43:
31:
27:
74:
47:
46:, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a
84:
indefinitely... (and wasn't myself aware of the 3-revert rule, so thanks for letting me know)
51:
70:
39:
62:
85:
57:
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be
93:
78:
34:
with one or more editors according to your reverts at
8:
7:
14:
30:. You appear to be engaged in an
21:
1:
109:
94:07:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
79:23:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
36:Free Territory of Trieste
89:
44:normal editing process
38:. Although repeatedly
59:blocked from editing
40:reverting or undoing
28:welcome to Knowledge
63:three-revert rule
100:
25:
24:
108:
107:
103:
102:
101:
99:
98:
97:
22:
19:
12:
11:
5:
106:
104:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
105:
96:
95:
91:
87:
81:
80:
76:
72:
69:. Thank you.
68:
64:
60:
55:
53:
49:
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
16:
82:
56:
20:
26:Hello, and
17:March 2013
71:Dawn Bard
52:talk page
48:consensus
32:edit war
50:on the
86:Aarska
67:block
90:talk
75:talk
92:)
77:)
54:.
88:(
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.