| Revision as of 21:32, 6 March 2006 editPhr (talk | contribs)2,508 edits →Sam Sloan at it again← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:41, 6 March 2006 edit undo137.216.208.82 (talk) →Sam Sloan at it againNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| I just tried it again. I keep getting this message about a spam protection filter. This does not happen when I have tried to make contributions elsewhere. It seems to be a problem specifically with the Eric Schiller discussion page. Could you take a look at it? - Louis Blair (6 March 2006) | I just tried it again. I keep getting this message about a spam protection filter. This does not happen when I have tried to make contributions elsewhere. It seems to be a problem specifically with the Eric Schiller discussion page. Could you take a look at it? - Louis Blair (6 March 2006) | ||
| :I was able to make an edit just now. What exactly did you try, and exactly what happened? Were you able to bring up the edit window with the right contents, and unable to save the edit? Or what? ] 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | :I was able to make an edit just now. What exactly did you try, and exactly what happened? Were you able to bring up the edit window with the right contents, and unable to save the edit? Or what? ] 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Thank you for your help. I think that I may have found a way to cope with the problem. The system seemed to have an objection to a link tinyurlsomethingorother. It was ALREADY on the page, but, for some reason, the system seemed to hold me responsible and would not let me save any additions unless I removed the tiny thing. It did not seem very important to the discussion, so I hope that nobody minds my removing it. I also removed your test message. I hope that was okay. I don't know why the system did not pester you about tiny. | |||
Revision as of 22:41, 6 March 2006
User_talk:Phr/Archive-2006-02-20
Three-Revert Rule
Engaging in an edit war is not the correct way to resolve a dispute. Your fervent reverts in the Edward G. Winter violate the three-revert rule. Instead of reverting the page, post your comment on the appropriate talk page. Continuing to engage in the acts prescribed could result in a block. joturner 22:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think I did a 3RR vio. I reverted twice . I also did a large edit where I removed a bunch of nonsense , but that's not a revert, and even if it is, that's still a total of 3. Did I count incorrectly? Thanks. Phr 22:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct; my mistake. joturner 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Sam Sloan at it again
I am sorry to bother you, but I figured that, this time, I would turn to someone other than Howcheng with my complaints. There are a number of problems with the new Julian Simpole entry (See the discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/Julian_Simpole), but I particularly wanted to ask someone else about the issue of an entry becoming, in large part, a commercial. Is there a policy with regard to this? Also, I tried to make a contribution to the discussion page for Eric Schiller (http://en.wikipedia.org/Eric_Schiller), but it was not accepted. Could you try and see if their is some technical problem? Here is the contribution that I wanted to make: What source is there for the claim that "Barnes & Noble bookstores have sold more than one hundred thousand books written by Eric Schiller"? - Louis (5 March 2006)
- I'll take a look at the Simpole page. Yes there is policy against commercials on wikipedia but the basic remedy is to edit the article to tone down the sales pitch. See WP:SPAM for info. You should be able to edit Talk:Eric Schiller. Maybe there was some temporary problem; you might try again. Phr 12:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I just tried it again. I keep getting this message about a spam protection filter. This does not happen when I have tried to make contributions elsewhere. It seems to be a problem specifically with the Eric Schiller discussion page. Could you take a look at it? - Louis Blair (6 March 2006)
- I was able to make an edit just now. What exactly did you try, and exactly what happened? Were you able to bring up the edit window with the right contents, and unable to save the edit? Or what? Phr 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I think that I may have found a way to cope with the problem. The system seemed to have an objection to a link tinyurlsomethingorother. It was ALREADY on the page, but, for some reason, the system seemed to hold me responsible and would not let me save any additions unless I removed the tiny thing. It did not seem very important to the discussion, so I hope that nobody minds my removing it. I also removed your test message. I hope that was okay. I don't know why the system did not pester you about tiny.