User talk:Attleboro

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Epicurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Loyola University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Revert

I assume this revert was a mistake? If not, it was highly inappropriate of you to accuse User:Bobrayner of being the IP. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the Semi. I was following the IP and did not see Bob's edit, so no linking the two was intended. I did intend to restore the current, briefer version of Chomsky's comment. Attleboro (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, glad to hear that. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

ACA

You have been reverted by 3 seperate editors on your opinion. I suggest you take it to talk. Arzel (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Will do... Attleboro (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In the future, please don't wait until you've hit the 3RR bright line before starting discussion. "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to engage in edit warring on this issue while it is currently being discussed on the talk page, as you did here, then I will create a report at WP:ANEW, which may lead to administrative sanctions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I thought you might be interested in this discussion, as you are of course involved in the broader dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a failed attempt to get admin review of disputed content. Attleboro (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Peace offering

If you disclose and retire all your socks then I'll work with you to get those sources into PPACA. I do believe the sources are worthy of mention, just not in those sections and not with your proposed wording. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll work with you, but we've got to see it to work on it. Some mention of the evidence related to small businesses needs to be in the article. Attleboro (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason for it to be in your preferred location in the article while we discuss it. Proposals on the talk page are perfectly adequate. Show me some good faith. Remove the content from the article and declare your socks, starting with Ortho. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I pull up my own socks, but appreciate any help I can get, including from you. I'm not wedded to any location, but it should be where small businesses or entrepreneurship is mentioned. Attleboro (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No soup for you. NEXT! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Mark Arsten (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Attleboro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Why? Please explain this to me. I made one reversion for cause after protection, to the immediately previous version, as did DrFleischman before me, and Prototime after me. I was simultaneously trying to work it out on two Talk pages, here and Talk:PPACA. This was only my 3rd reversion since Fri. 11/1, not all identical. Why me and not them (esp. Dr.F who called me names)? Attleboro (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I've unblocked your account. While seven reverts in seven days (between the article and the talk page) is arguably edit warring, it's a minor enough violation that I'm willing to reduce this to time served. Please take care not to edit war in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)