Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW) |
You have been blocked from editing for violation of the three-revert rule on Waltzing Matilda. (TW) |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] |
[[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] |
||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Afterwriting reported by User:McGeddon (Result: )]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. [[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 11:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Afterwriting reported by User:McGeddon (Result: )]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. [[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 11:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
== October 2015 == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''31 hours''' for [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]] and violating the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], as you did at [[:Waltzing Matilda]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[WP:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by first reading the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Page protection|page protection]]. [[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> |
Revision as of 14:59, 3 October 2015
Graham Leonard
Hello.. I noticed you made a correction in this edit. I'm sorry I'm not a native English speaker, I just want to make sure that, based on the source, valid ordination refers to the bishop not the church. I think your recent edit means that all bishop ordained under Old Catholic Church considered as valid, which is incorrect. This is a case by case basis, not all bishop of Old Catholic Church considered by RC as validly ordained. I look forward to hear your thoughts. Regards, Ign christian (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. It certainly has been the case, at least until they began ordaining women, that the ordinations of the Union of Utrecht churches have been recognised as valid by the RCC. I am not aware of any of their ordinations until recent times only being recognised on a case by case basis. So I believe my edit is essentially correct. I also cannot see any difference regarding this matter between my edit and yours in which you asserted that their ordinations are valid. The problem with this is that we don't make assertions in articles about whether anyone's ordinations are valid or not ~ only about whether and by who they are recognised as valid or not. I hope this clarifies matters. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your last edit, now it has greater clarity. I agree with you, my problem is I can't construct a good phrasing as you did. :-) Thanks again, Ign christian (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- No worries. Glad we could discuss this and improve things without any conflict. Cheers, Afterwriting (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your last edit, now it has greater clarity. I agree with you, my problem is I can't construct a good phrasing as you did. :-) Thanks again, Ign christian (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Afterwriting reported by User:McGeddon (Result: ). Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)