This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 137.216.208.82 (talk) at 02:36, 6 March 2006 (→Three-Revert Rule). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:36, 6 March 2006 by 137.216.208.82 (talk) (→Three-Revert Rule)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)