| Revision as of 16:41, 1 October 2006 editWilliam Mauco (talk | contribs)4,907 edits →Revert← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:09, 1 October 2006 edit undoPernambuco (talk | contribs)1,533 edits →RevertNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| ::: You might want to keep an eye on this page again. The same person who edit-warred yesterday has already done two reversions and has failed to answer my arguments in Talk. I am not asking you to take sides but merely mention this because you intervened in the dispute yesterday and now it looks like a repeat of the whole thing is brewing... - ] 16:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | ::: You might want to keep an eye on this page again. The same person who edit-warred yesterday has already done two reversions and has failed to answer my arguments in Talk. I am not asking you to take sides but merely mention this because you intervened in the dispute yesterday and now it looks like a repeat of the whole thing is brewing... - ] 16:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::: No reason for me to get involved again because I see on the talk page of that article that some of you know a lot more about this subject than me. When I have time I want to try to learn about it but meantime please all of you could try to work it out among yourselves. - ] 18:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:09, 1 October 2006
Toy trains, Brazil
I saw the toy trains page but would like to know if there are users who have specific information about Brazilian made toy trains? - Pernambuco 04:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
USS Edison
Do you have a source for the June 1969 friendly fire incident you added to the USS Edison article? I'd like to be able to cite it.--agr 23:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- I already sent it (two days ago) directly to you. Hope you liked it. Always glad to help. - Pernambuco 03:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Revert
Could you please revert yourself here. I want it, Marius wants it, and neither of us can do it because of the 3RR. Check the article's talkpage. --Tzekai 16:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- DON'T DO IT YET. SEE THE TALK PAGE. MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHERS HAVE AN OPINION. WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT BELONG ONLY TO TWO PAGE. EVERYTHING SHOULD BE DISCUSSED FIRST OR ELSE THERE ARE 3RR PROBLEMS. - 88.191.12.12 16:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. A third party opinion is always a good idea. I can not give an opinion because I really don't know enough about the subject. I just didn't want to see edit warring. I will try and research it so in the future I will know more. - Pernambuco 17:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- You might want to keep an eye on this page again. The same person who edit-warred yesterday has already done two reversions and has failed to answer my arguments in Talk. I am not asking you to take sides but merely mention this because you intervened in the dispute yesterday and now it looks like a repeat of the whole thing is brewing... - Mauco 16:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- No reason for me to get involved again because I see on the talk page of that article that some of you know a lot more about this subject than me. When I have time I want to try to learn about it but meantime please all of you could try to work it out among yourselves. - Pernambuco 18:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)