05:3805:38, 3 January 2016diffhist+1
Imgur
Also, if you're going to revert one thing, then it's your responsibility to not revert unrelated things with it!
05:3505:35, 3 January 2016diffhist+9
Imgur
Crap, I accidentally hit something that sent the edition before I was done fixing up my last summary!
05:2905:29, 3 January 2016diffhist−10
Hike Messenger
Undid revision 697971657 by
DD2K (
talk)This IS correct. It is STYLIZED as this, not that. Look at the LOGOAnd you're WRONG about what you falsely put on my talk page.
05:2805:28, 3 January 2016diffhist+15
Kmart
Undid revision 697971623 by
DD2K (
talk) This IS correct. It is STYLIZED as this, not that. And you're WRONG about what you falsely put on my talk page.
01:2301:23, 3 January 2016diffhist−35
Kesha
Having an opposing view as an edit made in good faith is not the same as "vandalism." Even that is mentioned in the WP rules. And it's not "just to make a point," either. Why shouldn't ebay be this way then, to keep the encyclopedia consistent?
01:2201:22, 3 January 2016diffhist−24
MSN
Having an opposing view as an edit made in good faith is not the same as "vandalism." Even that is mentioned in the WP rules. And it's not "just to make a point," either. Why shouldn't ebay be this way then, to keep the encyclopedia consistent?
01:2201:22, 3 January 2016diffhist−37
Kmart
Having an opposing view as an edit made in good faith is not the same as "vandalism." Even that is mentioned in the WP rules. And it's not "just to make a point," either. Why shouldn't ebay be this way then, to keep the encyclopedia consistent?
01:2101:21, 3 January 2016diffhist−112
Freeform (TV channel)
Having an opposing view as an edit made in good faith is not the same as "vandalism." Even that is mentioned in the WP rules. And it's not "just to make a point," either. Why shouldn't ebay be this way then, to keep the encyclopedia consistent?
01:2001:20, 3 January 2016diffhist−38
Keturi Brūkšniai
Having an opposing view as an edit made in good faith is not the same as "vandalism." Even that is mentioned in the WP rules. And it's not "just to make a point," either. Why shouldn't ebay be this way then, to keep the encyclopedia consistent?
01:1901:19, 3 January 2016diffhist−28
Solar TV
Having an opposing view as an edit made in good faith is not the same as "vandalism." Even that is mentioned in the WP rules. And it's not "just to make a point," either. Why shouldn't ebay be this way then, to keep the encyclopedia consistent?
01:1801:18, 3 January 2016diffhist−30
Granrodeo
Having an opposing view as an edit made in good faith is not the same as "vandalism." Even that is mentioned in the WP rules. And it's not "just to make a point," either. Why shouldn't ebay be this way then, to keep the encyclopedia consistent?
05:3805:38, 3 January 2016diffhist+1
Imgur
Also, if you're going to revert one thing, then it's your responsibility to not revert unrelated things with it!
05:3505:35, 3 January 2016diffhist+9
Imgur
Crap, I accidentally hit something that sent the edition before I was done fixing up my last summary!
05:2905:29, 3 January 2016diffhist−10
Hike Messenger
Undid revision 697971657 by
DD2K (
talk)This IS correct. It is STYLIZED as this, not that. Look at the LOGOAnd you're WRONG about what you falsely put on my talk page.
05:2805:28, 3 January 2016diffhist+15
Kmart
Undid revision 697971623 by
DD2K (
talk) This IS correct. It is STYLIZED as this, not that. And you're WRONG about what you falsely put on my talk page.
01:2301:23, 3 January 2016diffhist−35
Kesha
Having an opposing view as an edit made in good faith is not the same as "vandalism." Even that is mentioned in the WP rules. And it's not "just to make a point," either. Why shouldn't ebay be this way then, to keep the encyclopedia consistent?
01:2201:22, 3 January 2016diffhist−24
MSN
Having an opposing view as an edit made in good faith is not the same as "vandalism." Even that is mentioned in the WP rules. And it's not "just to make a point," either. Why shouldn't ebay be this way then, to keep the encyclopedia consistent?
01:2201:22, 3 January 2016diffhist−37
Kmart
Having an opposing view as an edit made in good faith is not the same as "vandalism." Even that is mentioned in the WP rules. And it's not "just to make a point," either. Why shouldn't ebay be this way then, to keep the encyclopedia consistent?
01:2101:21, 3 January 2016diffhist−112
Freeform (TV channel)
Having an opposing view as an edit made in good faith is not the same as "vandalism." Even that is mentioned in the WP rules. And it's not "just to make a point," either. Why shouldn't ebay be this way then, to keep the encyclopedia consistent?
01:2001:20, 3 January 2016diffhist−38
Keturi Brūkšniai
Having an opposing view as an edit made in good faith is not the same as "vandalism." Even that is mentioned in the WP rules. And it's not "just to make a point," either. Why shouldn't ebay be this way then, to keep the encyclopedia consistent?
01:1901:19, 3 January 2016diffhist−28
Solar TV
Having an opposing view as an edit made in good faith is not the same as "vandalism." Even that is mentioned in the WP rules. And it's not "just to make a point," either. Why shouldn't ebay be this way then, to keep the encyclopedia consistent?
01:1801:18, 3 January 2016diffhist−30
Granrodeo
Having an opposing view as an edit made in good faith is not the same as "vandalism." Even that is mentioned in the WP rules. And it's not "just to make a point," either. Why shouldn't ebay be this way then, to keep the encyclopedia consistent?