User talk:Ground Potato
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 11:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
3 revert rule
[edit]Please note that Wikipdia has a rule according to which an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. You have certainly passed that threshold on Philip Bradbourn. While other editors have been reverting a lot as well, please take this as this as a last warning. For further info pelase take a look at the welcome page.--Tikiwont 12:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- The three revert rule is the one explained above (it was a little truncated), where you also find a link for more info. It applies to all editors and not heeding it after this warning will most likely incur you a block. I've changed the word 'Scandal' to 'Incident', because that is the wording inside the paragraph. We don't want to decide whether something is a scandal, but would look for sources labeling it a scandal. The current source is a column only and says "Phew. A damaging slur averted." For the rest we will see how this article evolves, but more sources are needed in any case.--Tikiwont 13:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Three revert rule block
[edit]
You were warned above but you have continued reverting. Sam Blacketer 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)