| Revision as of 11:33, 10 June 2013 editFlat Out (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,822 edits →Recent edits: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:34, 10 June 2013 edit undoFlat Out (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,822 editsm →Recent editsNext edit → | ||
| Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
| == Recent edits == | == Recent edits == | ||
| I have happened across a few of your recent edits and am offering some friendly advice which you may, of course, take or leave. The starting point for dealing with other editors is to ] and remain |
I have happened across a few of your recent edits and am offering some friendly advice which you may, of course, take or leave. The starting point for dealing with other editors is to ] and remain ] as far as possible. Using edit summaries to make a point, rather than simply explaining your edit, is ill-advised. If you want to discuss content then the article's talk page is a good place to do that, but if you want to discuss the work of a particular editor do that at the editor's talk page. Happy editing, ] ] | ||
Revision as of 11:34, 10 June 2013
Welcome
|
May 2013
Hello, I'm MusikAnimal. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to 2013 Woolwich attack, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, — MusikAnimal 20:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Amy's Baking Company
Hey, Rocket. A belated WELCOME to Misplaced Pages! Regarding your addition of info on the 2010 incident to the Amy's Baking Company (TV episode) article, if that is reason that the owners decided to appear on Kitchen Nightmares, as you stated here, please provide a citation of a reliable source for this. Without such a citation, the material has no apparent relevance to the article about the episode. Nightscream (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
...this is why.
This is literally the only reason anyone would call Barack Obama a "mulatto" - it's linked to lunatic conspiracy theories that claim Barack Obama isn't rightfully the president. Misplaced Pages is not required to give such whackjobbery even the slightest hint of an opportunity to make virulently-racist claims on its pages. The end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at The Alex Jones Show. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not unless it's reverting shitty ass vandalism. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of 22nd and Market building collapse for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 22nd and Market building collapse is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/22nd and Market building collapse until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. LGA talk 11:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
AIV
Please stop posting 75.15.222.126 at WP:AIV. The edits are not vandalism. If the user is not responsive, go to WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI. AIV is only for vandalism. And remember WP:3RR is a two way street. No matter how good your intentions, you can find yourself blocked if you're not reverting blatant vandalism. -- Mufka 11:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
Recent edits
I have happened across a few of your recent edits and am offering some friendly advice which you may, of course, take or leave. The starting point for dealing with other editors is to assume good faith and remain civil as far as possible. Using edit summaries to make a point, rather than simply explaining your edit, is ill-advised. If you want to discuss content then the article's talk page is a good place to do that, but if you want to discuss the work of a particular editor do that at the editor's talk page. Happy editing, Flat Out let's discuss it