User talk:Baseball Bugs/Snapshot100130

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = => CAUTION: This page may contain SATIRE posing as data. <= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Your proposition may be good But let's have one thing understood Whatever it is, I'm against it! And even when you've changed it or condensed it I'm against it! --Groucho Marx in Horse Feathers

Ark-Hives

User talk:Wahkeenah User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive001 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive002 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive003 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive004 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive005 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive006 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive007 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive008 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive009 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive010 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive011 User talk:Baseball Bugs/Archive012

Transients welcome

IMPORTANT NOTICE to would-be harassers

An admin has stated the following for the record:

"Wikipedia doesn't need any new volunteers for the job of harassing User:Baseball Bugs at this time." [1]

But if anything turns up, we'll get back to you. 0:)

Re:BO2ip01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This was about a day or two after the whole Grandma Dottie, et al. fiasco, so it wouldn't surprise me to find these linked. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ref desk

I suppose I should ask - do you know 174.3.103.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). (maybe your kid brother or something)?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Nonsense, if it's a problem please mention there. It's not clear to me whether to just ignore or not...83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

your AIV report

That IP, 174..., that you just reported to AIV, has definitely left some bizarre comments on the Reference Desk pages. But I also see that most of his edits to actual articles have not been reverted, and looking at them, they appear to be constructive. I think it's possible that there may be 2 people using that IP, and if so, perhaps it should not be blocked. What do you think about the recent edits? Academic Challenger (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and revert any personal harassment against yourself. Would you take a look at his other edits too though? It's possible that they are disruptive in some way that I didn't notice. If the IP is only used by one person, they probably would be. Academic Challenger (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.