User talk:Leochews
January 2012
[edit]
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- Re your message: The warning to you and Jbfwildcat and protection of the page was strictly because of the edit warring. The article history log of Adolph Rupp is just atrocious and unacceptable. The three-revert rule is a bright-line rule and both of you should have been blocked. I have no interest in the article nor will I moderate any dispute between you and other editors. Please discuss the editing dispute via the dispute resolution process. There have been no discussion of the issue on the talk page and that is unacceptable. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)