User talk:Kedorlaomer
Twice today you have reverted across multiple edits to get back to one of your earlier edits with the word "terrorist" included. I'm not taking a position on wheather the word should be included or not but I will continue to revert if you clobber multiple people's edits in trying to put the word back in. Please be careful with your editing to avoid side effects such as removing non related edits when trying to introduce a change. Thank you. --StuffOfInterest 22:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, you have reverted this article fully or partly 4 times in less than 24 hours. Please self-revert, or you will be reported for breaking 3RR. Regards, Huldra 17:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
User notice: temporary 3RR block
[edit]Regarding reversions[1] made on October 8 2006 to Qiryat Gat
[edit] |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
Note
[edit]Hi. Your edits have been reverted because Wikipedia is not censored for minors. If you still believe the material should be removed, censored, or disclaimed, please discuss it in the article's discussion page first. Any further changes to the article in this manner will be regarded as vandalism unless we can reach an agreement at the discussion page first. You may be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue to ignore these warnings. You are encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia in a helpful manner, but please keep this in mind. Thank you. -- Szvest 21:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Omer. Thanks for the note. It may be that the source is questionable but the proper way to deal w/ that is to provide at the discussion a better source or at least make a comparaison between to two. There are many other ways to deal with that but removing a source (whatever it is -questionable or not) w/o providing a replacement is inacceptable especially reverting non-stop. Please note that removing all or significant parts of articles is considered vandalism.
- I read plenty of stuff in wikipedia that i really believe they are bullshit or nonsense but i never revert them w/o providing a new, better, reliable and neutral source.
- I know you are new and i can't be a pain in the ass to any of the newcomers. So what i suggest for you is to have a bit of time to read some of the basic wikipedia policies. It will certainly help you reach what you believe is right (if you are right). Just follow the procedures. Be sure that i won't revert any of your edits if you follow the above. Don't hesitate to contact me if you need any help. I am sorry of i made you feel threatened. Cheers -- Szvest 20:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)