| Revision as of 18:34, 1 February 2015 editKudpung (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors109,260 edits →AfC is broken: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:28, 2 February 2015 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,657 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:K7L/Archive 2) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
| <small>Learn more about ].</small> | <small>Learn more about ].</small> | ||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for December 14== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| :] | |||
| ::added links pointing to ], ], ], ], ], ] and ] | |||
| :] | |||
| ::added links pointing to ], ], ], ], ] and ] | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reverting other editors== | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] 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 -->--] (]) 08:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are also edit warring. I am attempting to discuss at ] but you are removing content (which has been added repeatedly by multiple editors) before that discussion can reach a conclusion. I draw your attention to ] and advise that you either show evidence of your ] allegations or withdraw them per ]. I would also ask that you stop removing valid, sourced information and let the talk page discussion run its course. Go the requests per page protection route if you like, but don't cry to me if that just gets the page locked on "the wrong version". That happens when people remove content absent consensus to do so. ] (]) 16:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Cable television piracy == | == Cable television piracy == | ||
Revision as of 01:28, 2 February 2015
|
A page you started (Railway Museum of Eastern Ontario) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Railway Museum of Eastern Ontario, K7L!
Misplaced Pages editor Carriearchdale just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thank you!
To reply, leave a comment on Carriearchdale's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Cable television piracy
Thanks for the great pagemove...definitely works better as a title than just plain 'cable theft'. Nate • (chatter) 02:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
RfC: AfC Helper Script access
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
AfC is broken
Of course AfC is broken, and there is a lot of support for that notion in the backrooms of Misplaced Pages. The best thing to do would be to scrap it altogether and there is a lot of support for that too. But before we can do that we have to convince the community that it's broken. Small changes like the one proposed highlight the problems surrounding AfC and the neeed for something else. Small changes lead to bigger ones. An RfC does not need to run for a full 30 days if the consensus become perfectly clear early on. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)