| Revision as of 04:49, 5 March 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,290,785 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Nomoskedasticity/Archives) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:14, 7 March 2015 edit undoA1candidate (talk | contribs)15,335 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| ==ANI notice== | ==ANI notice== | ||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | ||
| == 3rr == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> | |||
Revision as of 19:14, 7 March 2015
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
University Bible Fellowship article vandalism
Hey Nomo would you submit the University Bible Fellowship page to be locked please? It has been getting anonymous section blanking/vandalism multiple times. Thanks Bkarcher (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Philip Benedict
Hi Nomo, the latest revisions to the Phil Benedict page (which you deleted) were entirely based on third party sources. There wasn't a single citation of his CV. There were links to two different University websites (one in Europe, another in America) and two references from third party University Press books. All this in two short sentences. Perhaps you didn't see the updates before you deleted it? Either way, I would appreciate it if you would revert to the latest, update section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm thinking you haven't worked out what a WP:SECONDARY source is. Sorry. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. These are books not written by Benedict. They are books in which Benedict is mentioned as a third party. Isn't this a secondary source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talk • contribs) 19:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- There were two books. But there were other sources that didn't meet secondary, and they were pertinent to the more general point of the paragraph. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. These are books not written by Benedict. They are books in which Benedict is mentioned as a third party. Isn't this a secondary source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RefHistory (talk • contribs) 19:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
So why not challenge those two other secondary sources -- none of them were written by Benedict, by the way? Why not take it to the talk page to discuss your perspective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:341B:F2E0:854D:44EE:51D8:7641 (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ephraim Padwa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dispatches (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) 08:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
3rr
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.