User talk:TParis

DYK of The FP

I've replied to your comment here. Thank you for reviewing me! Corvoe (speak to me) 20:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Bremen Cotton Exchange

Thanks for loading DYK. I was hoping to save this for a meeting in March (the 30th) is it possible to leave this? I will move it to a safe area. Thanks anyway Victuallers (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Mail

You've got email from me. Cheers -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing Warring at United States presidential electionpart012

Hi, you blocked me, and took a rather rude and hostile tone toward me, as if I've been an unruly and disruptive editor when I've put in a lot of good faith work in to improve Wikipedia and have never received so much as a warning during six years of editing, making me feel rather disvalued as an editor. I'm sorry for whatever I've done to have personally offended you. I reverted edits on United States presidential election, 2012 that were considered disruptive by 75.91.224.24 a grand total of only 3 times, spread out over three different days, then I stopped. I note that the rule on Wikipedia:Edit warring is that editors must not perform more than 3 reverts within a single 24-hour period, so I still don't think I deserve that edit warring block on my permanent record as an editor, so I still hope you will reconsider it. But the only one edit warring was 75.91.224.24. And he is at it again. He has been reverted a total of 9 times now by 5 different editors. Since admins have said what the IP is doing doesn't meet the strict definition of vandalism, then he can't be reported as a vandal, so what exactly can be done? Thanks. Inqvisitor (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Read that entire policy again and don't just skip the part you think supports your complaint.--v/r - TP 00:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that I am at a computer, I can give you a fuller answer. First off, per WP:EW:

• "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what 'edit warring' means"

The three revert rule isn't what determines what is edit warring. You were involved in a series of reverts as follows: First revert by you, Second revert by Gilliam, Third revert by you, Fourth revert by you, Fifth revert by Vanamonde93, Sixth revert by Newbreeder, Seventh revert by Vanamonde93. Edit warring is defined as follows:

• "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."

By this definition, you were involved in an edit war. You were part of a team of 4 editors reverting a single IP. There are two sides to every edit war. One side cannot edit war alone because if the other side stops reverting, the one side has nothing left to revert. There is no requirement that content stay on your preferred or original version before discussion happens. Tag-teaming, so each editor in an edit war doesn't ever reach 4 reverts, is still edit warring and what's worse is that it is gaming the system. Finally, if you read WP:3RR, you'd see that:

• "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

So you see, what I did was completely in policy, you were edit warring, and you were rightly blocked. I wasn't rude, either.--v/r - TP 02:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Admiral Clarey Bridge

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Gnomish

Am i allowed to correct a redirection error? Its not technically on a page so. Pass a Method talk 23:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The point of a topic ban is that you don't edit that topic area at all and completely disconnect. Why are you concerned with a redirect? I'm going to start working on a new article, Admiral Clarey, would you like to try to get it to GA with me instead?--v/r - TP 02:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)