Revision as of 21:19, 7 October 2007 editEdgarde (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,109 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:49, 7 October 2007 edit undoGscshoyru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers24,512 edits Warning: Potentially violating the three revert rule on Erotica. using TWNext edit → | ||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
:I think this suggests a terrible lack of perspective. I have made only one edit ''ever'' to this section. Since then I have discussed this with you on talk pages, and made suggestions. I really resent being accused of "edit warring and bullying". / ]<small> ] ]</small> 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC) | :I think this suggests a terrible lack of perspective. I have made only one edit ''ever'' to this section. Since then I have discussed this with you on talk pages, and made suggestions. I really resent being accused of "edit warring and bullying". / ]<small> ] ]</small> 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
== October 2007 == | |||
{{{icon|] }}}You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Erotica|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] 21:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
:''If this is a shared ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.'' |
Revision as of 21:49, 7 October 2007
On adding "Student erotica" section to Erotica article
Even if sourced, student erotica is too small and recent a genre to add to a broad article like Erotica, especially with details of known publications. If "Student erotica" is a real phenoemon, consider creating a new article with this information.
It would be helpful if you registered an account since this allows an editor to create new articles, but if you wish to remain anonymous, you can request an article be created. / edg ☺ ★ 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: Erotica
I added the section back in. The section is referenced, and it is a new movement among student publications. Rather than deleting it, it should be expanded or moved to another article. In fact, it is the most referenced part of the article. If you delete it again without first discussing it on the talk page, it may be seen as vandalism. 151.197.111.178 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you value talk page discussion so much, you could have started that discussion instead of reverting and accusing me of vandalism. / edg ☺ ★ 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Are you objecting to my not putting my comment in the correct section? / edg ☺ ★ 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't move the discussion to my Talk page after telling me to discuss this in Talk:Erotica. / edg ☺ ★ 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This section has been removed by three different logged-in editors. This suggest you are going against WP:CONSENSUS. Please don't restore it. Better to start a stub article and link it from Erotica. / edg ☺ ★ 21:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring
Please stop edit warring on the Erotica article. 151.197.111.178 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not edit warring. The content is not notable. I'm about to comment on the talk page as well, but consensus is against you. The fact that it may be notable one day doesn't mean it will be notable now. And you may want to see WP:3RR Gscshoyru 21:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Erotica
I added the section back in. The section is referenced, and it is a new movement among student publications. Rather than deleting it, it should be expanded or moved to another article. In fact, it is the most referenced part of the article. If you delete it again without first discussing it on the talk page, it may be seen as vandalism. 151.197.111.178 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Take it up here: Talk:Erotica#Student_publications 151.197.111.178 20:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think we were editing at the same time. Look, it may one day be big enough to justify its own article, right now... no. Until then it should stay where it is. 151.197.111.178 20:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- My comments here merely reflected what i've already said on the talk page. I was responding to your comments on my talk page. So, my comments here were just comments about your comments. In the end, I don' want to edit war, bit i do feel that that section adds to the article.151.197.111.178 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no consensus on that section. There is merely edit warring and bullying. I will report you for violations of 3RR if you continue to revert the article. 151.197.111.178 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think this suggests a terrible lack of perspective. I have made only one edit ever to this section. Since then I have discussed this with you on talk pages, and made suggestions. I really resent being accused of "edit warring and bullying". / edg ☺ ★ 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
October 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Erotica. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Gscshoyru 21:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.