241:
296:
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
136:
has fuck all to do with the price of eggs, as my edits there include their failures, embarrassments and opposition. It's strange because earlier this week I was portrayed by another user as "left-leaning" because I preferred a BBC source over a Fox News source on the same story. It's amazing that
128:, seeing as in the article I've included references to his drunken shenanigans, hoaxes and criminal record, as well as deleting his claim that he is "hotly tipped to be the next BNP youth leader" and his edit to
107:. There are no valid speedy deletion criteria that can be used to delete the article and the one chance at using proposed deletion has been used. Do not readd any other deletion process to the article. --
200:
At no point have I vandalised this article. I have edited some hyperbole and non-neutral POV language to more accurately reflect the information contained in the cited sources. The user
186:
Infobox was added by myself and I beleive it has a place. He has a history of vandalising the article. It won't be long until his account is banned and the article permanently protected
219:
I will ask again and my questions seem to have gotten lost. Can you please tell me where I edited Joshua
Bonehill without explaining my edits as you stated in your
26:
25:
255:. 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
45:. These editors have also just begun editing Knowledge; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and
264:
223:. Also, you never explained why the infobox that was added to the article does not belong. So why did you remove the infobox? --
256:
142:
272:
276:
173:
You never explained why the infobox that was added to the article does not belong. So why did you remove it? --
284:
138:
56:
205:
289:
268:
267:
for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant
252:
260:
204:, who is also the subject of the article, keeps reverting the edits without giving valid reasons.
191:
104:
63:
38:
74:
305:
227:
177:
164:
111:
248:
129:
125:
96:
89:
293:
124:
I'm afraid you suffer from as many delusions as him if you think I write in favour of
201:
187:
133:
100:
301:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --
70:
308:
230:
213:
195:
180:
167:
146:
114:
78:
302:
263:
among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See
224:
174:
161:
108:
240:
103:(WP:AFD). The instructions on how to nominate an article using WP:AFD is at
156:
Can you please tell me where I edited Joshua
Bonehill as you stated in your
37:! Thanks for contributing to Knowledge. Come join other new editors at
51:
292:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
69:
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend,
41:! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from
239:
132:
which said that he invented the ideology. Also, editing
283:
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
220:
157:
275:. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
17:
AntiCauliflower92, you are invited to the
Teahouse!
137:aiming for neutrality gets me shot by both sides.
259:to work toward making a version that represents
299:even if you don't violate the three-revert rule
8:
251:shows that you are currently engaged in an
99:should be deleted you have one option,
7:
14:
24:
288:—especially if you violate the
247:Your recent editing history at
1:
309:18:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
231:17:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
214:17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
196:03:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
181:02:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
168:02:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
147:14:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
115:19:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
61:
95:If you believe the article
79:16:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
49:. I hope to see you there!
324:
47:get advice from your peers
22:
209:
152:Your revert of my revert
244:
243:
101:articles for deletion
285:blocked from editing
57:I'm a Teahouse host
273:dispute resolution
245:
64:Visit the Teahouse
290:three-revert rule
206:AntiCauliflower92
86:
85:
81:
43:other new editors
35:AntiCauliflower92
315:
68:
66:
54:
28:
21:
20:
323:
322:
318:
317:
316:
314:
313:
312:
277:page protection
249:Joshua Bonehill
238:
154:
130:Neo-nationalism
126:Joshua Bonehill
122:
97:Joshua Bonehill
93:
90:Joshua Bonehill
82:
67:
62:
50:
19:
12:
11:
5:
321:
319:
237:
234:
218:
184:
183:
153:
150:
121:
118:
92:
87:
84:
83:
31:
29:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
320:
311:
310:
307:
304:
300:
295:
291:
287:
286:
280:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
242:
236:November 2014
235:
233:
232:
229:
226:
222:
216:
215:
211:
207:
203:
198:
197:
193:
189:
182:
179:
176:
172:
171:
170:
169:
166:
163:
159:
151:
149:
148:
144:
140:
135:
134:Britain First
131:
127:
119:
117:
116:
113:
110:
106:
102:
98:
91:
88:
80:
76:
72:
65:
60:
58:
53:
48:
44:
40:
36:
30:
27:
23:
16:
298:
282:
281:
246:
221:edit summary
217:
199:
185:
158:edit summary
155:
123:
94:
46:
42:
39:the Teahouse
34:
32:
269:noticeboard
105:WP:AFDHOWTO
52:Writ Keeper
261:consensus
257:talk page
139:'''tAD'''
120:Delusions
297:warring—
271:or seek
253:edit war
202:Jooner29
188:Jooner29
294:reverts
71:HostBot
160:. --
210:talk
192:talk
143:talk
75:talk
306:fan
279:.
265:BRD
228:fan
178:fan
165:fan
112:fan
33:Hi
303:GB
225:GB
212:)
194:)
175:GB
162:GB
145:)
109:GB
77:)
59:)
208:(
190:(
141:(
73:(
55:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
