| Revision as of 18:03, 16 March 2009 editHaploidavey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers49,394 edits →gladiator: thanks← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:18, 2 April 2009 edit undoNukes4Tots (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,330 edits →3RR: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| :David, thanks so much for the supportive message on my talk-page. I feel I've rather lost sight of the wood for the trees - probably over-researched and too precious about it. As for the two sections with almost no inline citation - I can do little if anything about that. Maybe a couple of days off from it will help. | :David, thanks so much for the supportive message on my talk-page. I feel I've rather lost sight of the wood for the trees - probably over-researched and too precious about it. As for the two sections with almost no inline citation - I can do little if anything about that. Maybe a couple of days off from it will help. | ||
| ] (]) 18:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | ] (]) 18:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == 3RR == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Lee Enfield|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> --] (]) 15:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:18, 2 April 2009
David, I've been following your contributions, am aware of your background and would much appreciate some input on the gladiator copyedit. I've posted the underlying issues on the talk page.
The first four paras are (more or less) now referenced. Some glaring omissions remain. In your opinion, are these sections already overloaded?
The rest of the article will have to receive similarly drastic attention.Haploidavey (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Just got your message at my talk page. Much appreciated! You may have noticed, I've thrown caution to the winds. Bold's the word. And polite at all times, of course. Yup...Haploidavey (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC) (again, forgot to sign)
AfD nomination of StyroHawk kite
An article that you have been involved in editing, StyroHawk kite, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/StyroHawk kite. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. B.Wind (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:BLANKING
believe it or not, IPs are permitted to blank their talk pages. they should not be reverted if they do so. cheers, –xeno (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Of course they're permitted -- anybody can do anything they want. Deal is, this IP is high-vandalism, if not vandalism-only. I read the wikipolicy referenced, and I don't think it's one of the better ones, but will abide. Thanks for the headsup. DavidOaks (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
gladiator
A plea for your input. The article is now very long (the edit page tells me so). I don't see how it can be split without losing the flow. Any advice? Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- David, thanks so much for the supportive message on my talk-page. I feel I've rather lost sight of the wood for the trees - probably over-researched and too precious about it. As for the two sections with almost no inline citation - I can do little if anything about that. Maybe a couple of days off from it will help.
Haploidavey (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lee Enfield. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)