User talk:Uk55

Welcome!

Hello, Uk55! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

October 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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 warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

There has been a long standing general consensus at Blu-ray, that the industry standard practice us using frame rates should be used. Occasionally we get a lone editor determined to hammer in the non standard field rates for the interlaced formats. You seem to be a new editor determined to do the same. Although a fourth revert would not be within 24 hours it still counts as edit warring and will likely result in an WP:AN3 complaint which will likely result in you being blocked from editing. 85.255.233.161 (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@85.255.233.161: I am well aware of the three-revert rule, and am trying to avoid an edit war, but it's made difficult when people like you keep making changes without providing any evidence to support them. In the talk page so far, there are 2 people who agree with you, and two who disagree, so hardly a consensus. Please have this discussion there instead of attempting to chastise me for acting within the the rules.Uk55 (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

85.255.233.161, can I ask if you usually edit logged in and, if so, what your username is? There aren't many contributions from your IP address. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry:: I only ever edit under an IP and then occasionally. The apparent few edits is because my ISP changes my IP address every time I log in. I have no control over this. I am stuck with it. And today, I am saddled with: 85.255.233.196 (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are as familiar with the 3 reverts rule as you claim, then you will also be aware that posting the warning template to a new editor's talk page who is at 3RR is a compulsory requirement. If you committed 4RR and no such template had been posted, the any AN3 or edit warring complaint could well fail on the grounds that you had not been informed of the rules (a link to the warning or evidence that you are aware of the rule is an essential part of any AN3 complaint). I had no way of knowing that you were familiar with the procedure or not. Having said that: it is commendable that you actually stayed on the right side of the line.

As for your claims that there are two people who disagree with me, I can only see one. You. 85.255.233.196 (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@85.255.233.196: At no point did I exceed two edits in 24 hours. Your 'warning' was clearly an attempt at harassment, and your attempts to move the discussion here are completely unwelcome. Uk55 (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You did not. But exceeding 3 edits in 24 hours is not the only criterion to be edit warring. Just performing 4 reverts is still edit warring if you do not attempt the discuss the edit on the talk page. You did not start the attempt to discuss on the talk page, but only did so in response to Mr Wrights instigation. Nevertheless, you continued the edit war while doing so. It is yourself that is required to take the matter to the talk page in accordance with WP:BRD. That was edit warring but 3 reverts is unlikely to attact admin interest. But 4 reverts will. If you believe the warning was harassment, then I cannot help what you think. Regardless, the warning is a Wikipedia requirement as I explained. Like many others editors, I'm sure you will receive many other well intentioned warnings.

On what basis do you consider that I have "moved the discussion here". 3RR warnings can only be placed on an editor's talk page and this discussion is solely about your non acceptance of that legitimate warning. As far as I can tell there is no discussion here on the format of your table in the article. 85.255.233.210 (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@85.255.233.210: You've been visiting my talk page several times a day while my posts on the Bluray talk page go unanswered. Your intentions are quite clear. Uk55 (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Uk55. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 20:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

A message of encouragement

Hi Uk55. I hope that this evening's events at the Teahouse haven't put you off editing. If you still have concerns about sockpuppetry, I suggest that you take up Skyllfully's offer of help. Beyond that, keep up the good work by making constructive article edits and engaging with other editors on talk pages where appropriate. If you need any other help, please do let me know. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Noted, I appreciate your support. That has to be one of the more bizarre criticisms I've had so far, thankfully resolved quickly. Uk55 (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I could perhaps have understood it if you said that they're British, hence they're sockpuppets (as if all British editors were socks), but there was nothing wrong with noting that three editors were all (an important word) British, amongst other similarities, in my humble opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)