| Revision as of 17:52, 31 October 2013 editAttleboro (talk | contribs)526 edits →ACA← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:04, 31 October 2013 edit undoDrFleischman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,325 edits →ACANext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| You have been reverted by 3 seperate editors on your opinion. I suggest you take it to talk. ] (]) 17:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | You have been reverted by 3 seperate editors on your opinion. I suggest you take it to talk. ] (]) 17:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| : Will do... ] (]) 17:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | : Will do... ] (]) 17:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| Please don't wait until you've hit the 3RR bright line before starting discussion. ''"The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."'' Thank you. --] (]) 19:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:04, 31 October 2013
Disambiguation link notification for August 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Epicurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loyola University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Revert
I assume this revert was a mistake? If not, it was highly inappropriate of you to accuse User:Bobrayner of being the IP. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the Semi. I was following the IP and did not see Bob's edit, so no linking the two was intended. I did intend to restore the current, briefer version of Chomsky's comment. Attleboro (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, glad to hear that. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
ACA
You have been reverted by 3 seperate editors on your opinion. I suggest you take it to talk. Arzel (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Will do... Attleboro (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Please don't wait until you've hit the 3RR bright line before starting discussion. "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)