User talk:Turkeyphant/Archive Mar 2007

Keeley Hazell
Is there a reason why you keep changing the spelling? It's generally accepted as having one l. ust wondering.-- Wizardman 05:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I keep correcting your vandalism. There is no such word as "modeling".  Furthermore, Keeley is British and hence the proper English spelling is appropriate.   Tu rk ey ph an t 05:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Trust me, correcting the spelling certainly is not vandalism. According to Model (person), my spelling's right. Although in the big scheme of things it doesn't even matter whih way it is.-- Wizardman 05:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No - but you weren't correcting the spelling, you were deliberately reverting my corrections. I have already demonstrated adequately why you should not revert my edits, please refrain from doing so.   Tu rk ey ph an t 05:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there *is* such a word as modeling. Reported at 3RR. JuJube 05:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is better to use the more correct spelling and also the spelling that is relevant to the article.  Tu rk ey ph an t 05:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which according to the link I just provided is "modeling". JuJube 05:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't matter who's right, the point is that you are now violating WP:3RR the three-revert rule policy on Wikipedia. Continuatiopn of this will result in a block. Hopefully this will also give time for cooler heads to prevail here.-- Wizardman 05:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * JuJube: Sorry, but you are wrong. Wizardman: Could you please clarify your last comment? Thank you.  Tu rk ey ph an t 05:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whopps, that's supposed to say you are noW violating it, havign made too many reverts on Keeley Hazell in 24 hours.Sorry, here's an easier explanation: [[Image:Stop hand.svg|30px|left|Warning]]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Wizardman 05:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * JuJube and Wizardman: both of you have also violated 3RR on the same article. Furthermore, you gave no explanation for your actions. I have explained myself on my talk page and in edit summaries.  You merely performed JS reverts without checking my reasoning.  As for my 3RR infractions: I did not realise the 1st revert fell within 24 hours of the 4th.  Also, the 5th edit was meant to correct my error where I accidentally failed to use an edit summary.  Tu rk ey ph an t 05:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Wizard, for the simple reason that he is correct. Edit warring achieves nothing. Discuss the changes and come to a consensus. Again, i will bring up the fact that edit warring results in temporary blocking from editing articles. Gab.popp 05:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you notice, the article history shows that Wizardman began the edit war. I have discussed the changes and given my reasoning.  So far there have been no valid counterarguments.    Tu rk ey ph an t 06:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello! How many times do I have to give that Wiktionary link? You've been proven wrong already, accept it.JuJube 06:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he hasn't — see the Compact OED and discussion at Talk:Keeley Hazell. This edit war reflects badly on all its participants. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you hadn't realised, wikis are not foolproof. That's why I have to keep correcting spelling errors on here.  In addition, wiktionary shows that the English spelling is "modelling" and thus it should be used on the article in question.   Tu rk ey ph an t 06:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Turkeyphant, even though you are correct about the UK spelling of "modelling", that does not excuse the 3RR violation. I'll let you off the hook this time, but don't do it again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As I explained above, it was due to an combination of accidents that I violated the rule and, although it does not excuse it, the other editors also violated it.   Tu rk ey ph an t 06:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually only reverted three times, whereas 3RR requires more than that. Don't make false claims. JuJube 09:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll just point out that you don't need 3, or even 2 reverts to break the rule. The purpose of the rule is to stop edit wars. Rules aren't made to be inflexible, but it really is the principle behind it that matters. I'll add the source of that information when i find it. Gab.popp 11:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)