User talk:Freemarkets

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Freemarkets! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk Pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Ac e tic '^Acid 01:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom G. Palmer[edit]

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. WP:3RR is not negotiable except in cases of simple vandalism. If you disagree with the content of edits by another user, stale revert warring is never an acceptable solution. You might consider mediation, or a request for comment. Regardless, the 3RR is in place and applies to all content disputes. This is your second warning. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not deleting any of your reverts. I'm warning you about WP:3RR, which is a Wiki policy you have violated. I'm not sure how I can be more clear about this so I'll leave it at that. By the way, you can sign your name by typing --~~~~ after your posts. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Heh, I'm not threating you. This is a warning. If you had reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours, I would be blocking you, not warning you. ;) At any rate, the 3RR does not entitle you to 3 reverts per article per day. I'm just trying to make you aware of the general policy about reverting. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR does not entitle you to three reverts per article per day because the policy itself says so; it might do you some good to read it. The purpose of the rule is to give admins a concrete, unambiguous, and community-supported tool to end stale revert wars over content disputes. This does not mean that admins must follow the "letter of the law", because there are no laws on Wikipedia other than those in effect in the state of Florida. In fact, there have been several cases where admins have enforced the spirit of the 3RR, rather than its letter, and met with great community support when their actions were challenged; for example, one administrator blocked a user under 3RR although his fourth revert was made 20 minutes after the 24 hour period since his first, but this action was generally approved by the community.

The spirit of the policy is to discourage stale, stubborn reverting of edits and encourage discussion and mediation as a means of dispute resolution. The purpose of the warning is to make you aware of these facts, and more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, so that you will be able to be a better editor in the context of making an encyclopedia. It also verifies that you are aware of the rule so that you may choose to alter your behavior voluntarily, rather than allowing the problem to grow until the use of force (blocking) becomes necessary to resolve it. I hope this answers your questions. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you have a different interpretation of policy, but I would suggest that you not be surprised whet you find that it doesn't work out the way you expect. I don't have much else to add to this, so I'll say thanks for the discussion and good night. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]