| Revision as of 06:53, 3 August 2010 editA3RO (talk | contribs)13,469 editsm →Problem editing; hold your horses← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:10, 3 August 2010 edit undoEpeefleche (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers150,049 edits →Problem editing; hold your horsesNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| ::As I explained to you before, the refserv bot. You have to read others' missives, to benefit from them.--] (]) 06:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | ::As I explained to you before, the refserv bot. You have to read others' missives, to benefit from them.--] (]) 06:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::Wow, really? What I saw is what I see. It seems you rushed through it and didn't even other looking at the concerns expressed. It had nothing to do with your references, other than the comment I made about them. --<font face="Century Gothic" color="green" size="2">]</font><font face="Century Gothic" color="blue" size="2">]</font> | :::Wow, really? What I saw is what I see. It seems you rushed through it and didn't even other looking at the concerns expressed. It had nothing to do with your references, other than the comment I made about them. --<font face="Century Gothic" color="green" size="2">]</font><font face="Century Gothic" color="blue" size="2">]</font> | ||
| ::::Yep. Really.--] (]) 07:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:10, 3 August 2010
Mmhmm...
I am... so... FIERCE
Problem editing; hold your horses
As I've indicated here, I believe that your over-exuberance is manifesting in disruptive editing. Just a suggestion -- you might want to slow down, and also tone down your inappropriate officious tone concurrently. It would be less disruptive, and more civil. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Considering I've only tagged the article I will take your comment on disruptive editing with a grain of salt. I've only commented on your abnormal way to edit an article after its creation, so your comment on civility goes out the window, along with your comment on my tone. You removed the tags without providing an edit summary and I still disagree with the way it's written. Had you provided even a simple comment to my last message that would of been sufficient enough, even though I have every right to express my disgust for it. --A3RO (mailbox) 06:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've been editing long enough to have my own views as to whether my editing is normal, and whether your editing is disruptive. I'm sure you are brimming with good faith. So your above missive is another sign that you are simply not reading. The bot removed your tags, as inappropriate. I didn't touch them (or, for that matter, even see them before the bot removed them). I've been here long enough, and am familiar with your disagreement w/GeorgeWilliam enough, to know to ignore your disruption, but I would hate to see you drive away newbie editors who are seeking to contribute. Kindly keep your need to boss others around in check. Give article creators a moment to fix up new articles. If you want to look for articles bereft of refs, or look for vandalism, there are better places for you to play to exercise your desires than by visiting your warnings on editors moments into their initial creation.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Who? The invisible bot? Edit conflicts are a problem with erratic, minimal editing. I do not "drive away" anyone... only those who seek to confront. I also have the ability to "be" familiar with someone's past history... it's called the HISTORY tab. Good bye. --A3RO (mailbox) 06:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- As I explained to you before, the refserv bot. You have to read others' missives, to benefit from them.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, really? What I saw is what I see. It seems you rushed through it and didn't even other looking at the concerns expressed. It had nothing to do with your references, other than the comment I made about them. --A3RO (mailbox)
- Yep. Really.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, really? What I saw is what I see. It seems you rushed through it and didn't even other looking at the concerns expressed. It had nothing to do with your references, other than the comment I made about them. --A3RO (mailbox)
- As I explained to you before, the refserv bot. You have to read others' missives, to benefit from them.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)