Revision as of 02:17, 19 November 2011 editTelevision fan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,987 edits →November 2011← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:19, 19 November 2011 edit undoTelevision fan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,987 edits →I've been nice to your and asked you nicely: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
Don't take it personally -- I want you to see your mistakes and become a better editor. Please don't edit war with me but really read the edit instead of stewing in your own juices.] (]) 02:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC) | Don't take it personally -- I want you to see your mistakes and become a better editor. Please don't edit war with me but really read the edit instead of stewing in your own juices.] (]) 02:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
== I've been nice to your and asked you nicely == | |||
I have asked you nicely not to edit war, yet you persist. Please refrain.] (]) 02:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:19, 19 November 2011
Please click here to leave me a message. Thanks.Welcome to Lhb1239's Misplaced Pages talk page.
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject PhotographyResponding to RFCs
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Photography. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible. You have received this notice because your name is on Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Disambiguation link notificationHi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Icon/IconicWithout delving too deep into the details of your argument, I don't want to confuse the reader. It is confusing if a source states a past tense "once" iconic and not present tense, but the Misplaced Pages page reads otherwise. If you think the writer got it wrong by referring its iconic status in the past tense, then the article is unreliable and needs to be removed. If you do, however, you will need another reference to support the use of the term. Without a reference to source the descriptive adjective that is "iconic," it become subjective opinion and not objective fact. Personally, I think the writer is not incorrect.Television fan (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Alive (1993 film)Although I made an edit to the cast section of this page, you ave chosen to undo my edit twice and now imply that I am vandalizing. I suggest you watch the actual DVD, which will show that Miguel Ferrer played the narrator, not John Malkovich, as this page originally states. I know--by having watched the actual movie, that the Internet Movie web site also lists the incorrect information also. This information is verifiable by actually watching the movie. Mytimeistoday (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
November 2011November 2011You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Pan Am episodes. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Why have you declared an eidt awr on me? While some of your edits are good, some lack attention to detail and are clumsy, awkward, and flawed.Television fan (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Don't take it personally -- I want you to see your mistakes and become a better editor. Please don't edit war with me but really read the edit instead of stewing in your own juices.Television fan (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC) I've been nice to your and asked you nicelyI have asked you nicely not to edit war, yet you persist. Please refrain.Television fan (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC) |