→January 2009: re |
→January 2009: 3RR notice |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
:::I have responded to the content-related issues at [[Talk:Mismatch negativity]] (that page is on my watchlist, so I see all messages posted there). If you believe the papers you posted at my talk page would be better references, you are welcome to include them in the article, but please don't remove the other two refs without at least replacing them with better refs, or (better yet) adding more text to qualify the statement about attentional resources if you think there are problems with it. [[User:Politizer|Politizer]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Politizer|talk]]</sup></small>/<small><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Politizer|contribs]]</sub></small> 16:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
:::I have responded to the content-related issues at [[Talk:Mismatch negativity]] (that page is on my watchlist, so I see all messages posted there). If you believe the papers you posted at my talk page would be better references, you are welcome to include them in the article, but please don't remove the other two refs without at least replacing them with better refs, or (better yet) adding more text to qualify the statement about attentional resources if you think there are problems with it. [[User:Politizer|Politizer]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Politizer|talk]]</sup></small>/<small><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Politizer|contribs]]</sub></small> 16:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::What was removed was actually the first reference to it, and it was removed because it was in the lead section and in an identical context as the third reference; Wikipedia policy is generally that lead section doesn't need to have references if the same information appears in the body and is referenced there. It was Looie's suggestion, not mine, to remove the reference, so if you disagree you might want to address him at the article talk page. [[User:Politizer|Politizer]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Politizer|talk]]</sup></small>/<small><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Politizer|contribs]]</sub></small> 14:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC) |
::::What was removed was actually the first reference to it, and it was removed because it was in the lead section and in an identical context as the third reference; Wikipedia policy is generally that lead section doesn't need to have references if the same information appears in the body and is referenced there. It was Looie's suggestion, not mine, to remove the reference, so if you disagree you might want to address him at the article talk page. [[User:Politizer|Politizer]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Politizer|talk]]</sup></small>/<small><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Politizer|contribs]]</sub></small> 14:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Edit warring on [[Mismatch negativity]]== |
|||
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]{{#if:Mismatch negativity|  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Mismatch negativity]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. If necessary, pursue [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. {{#if:<br/>You have already been asked several times to explain your position more clearly, and to respond to the most recent issues raised at the talk page; I have taken the time to contact other areas of Wikipedia and bring in an uninvolved editor for a second opinion, and have followed this editor's advice in keeping the references in. If you want to remove the references, you will need to provide some good reasons to do so, rather than just repeatedly undoing our edits.|<br/>You have already been asked several times to explain your position more clearly, and to respond to the most recent issues raised at the talk page; I have taken the time to contact other areas of Wikipedia and bring in an uninvolved editor for a second opinion, and have followed this editor's advice in keeping the references in. If you want to remove the references, you will need to provide some good reasons to do so, rather than just repeatedly undoing our edits.|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Politizer|Polit<font color="#8B0000">'''i'''</font>zer]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Politizer|talk]]</sup></small>/<small><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Politizer|contribs]]</sub></small> 14:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:34, 30 January 2009
March 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Mismatch negativity has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Tango (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
April 2008
Your recent edit to Mutant (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as using a shared IP address to edit a page that experiences malicious edits by users that continue to edit via shared IP ranges or open proxies. Since these ranges are too large (collateral damage) to be blocked and user's IP addresses are not visible, edits to this page by logged-out editors of server or shared IP ranges and new users are reverted. The changes can be reviewed and restored by established users. // VoABot II (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
June 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Cyclosarin has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I hit the revert button just as the change came up. I'll try to be more careful next time. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Ultima V: Warriors of Destiny. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Mismatch negativity. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Even if that source wasn't directly cited in the article, it was still useful as a source of additional information and further reading, which is why it was included in the first place. Politizer talk/contribs 15:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again, please go to Talk:Mismatch negativity and discuss the problems you have, rather than reverting without discussion. If you continue, you will be in violation of the three-revert rule and run the risk of being blocked.
- If you believe the Further Reading section is unrepresentative of all views, you can either a) add more papers to that section to represent the other views, or b) read the Naatanen paper and incorporate that information into the main text (with notes explaining that some might disagree) and then (and only then) remove the section.
- I still don't know what you mean by some refs being "inconsistent." If the only inconsistency is that they are formatted differently, then the appropriate action is to fix the formatting, not to delete them. Politizer talk/contribs 15:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have reverted your removal of the two Pulvermuller refs, because you still haven't explained why you think they should not be included. As I stated before, I originally inserted the references as examples of studies that have claimed that MMN is independent of attentional resources; if you have better references for that claim, you can add them, but if you remove these refs without doing anything then you're just creating unreferenced statements in the article.
- If your only reason for saying the references are "unjustified" is that the formatting is not consistent with the rest of the article, the appropriate action is not to remove them without discussion, but to fix the formatting, such as with the following text:
<ref>Pulvermüller, Friedemann (2003). Automatic processing of grammar in the human brain as revealed by the mismatch negativity. ''NeuroImage'' 20: 159.</ref>
and<ref>Pulvermüller, Friedemann (2008). Syntax as a reflex: Neurophysiological evidence for the early automaticity of syntactic processing. ''Brain and Language'' 104. 244–253.</ref>
. If you have some other problems with the refs, please discuss them at either the article talk page or my talk page, rather than removing the refs over and over again without giving a valid reason. - If you remove the refs again without discussion, I am afraid I will have no choice but to report you here for edit warring. I would hate to do that because it looks like you have made valuable contributions at the other articles where you have worked, but unfortunately your actions at this particular article constitute edit warring. Politizer talk/contribs 15:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, I don't see any point in your repeatedly telling me to be more respectful, because I have been as respectful as possible with you (if you look at the edit history of the article, most of my edit summaries were things such as "please discuss...", etc., and I only said "STOP removing refs" after you had repeatedly ignored requests for discussion.
- As for "threats and accusations"...I apologize if my last message came across as a threat, but I was merely intending to warn you about the possible consequences of edit warring before this situation gets out of hand. I did this precisely because I don't want to have to report you or bring admins into this—like I said above, the vast majority of your contributions are good and I wouldn't want to block you from making valid contributions to other articles just because of what happens at this one.
- I have responded to the content-related issues at Talk:Mismatch negativity (that page is on my watchlist, so I see all messages posted there). If you believe the papers you posted at my talk page would be better references, you are welcome to include them in the article, but please don't remove the other two refs without at least replacing them with better refs, or (better yet) adding more text to qualify the statement about attentional resources if you think there are problems with it. Politizer talk/contribs 16:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- What was removed was actually the first reference to it, and it was removed because it was in the lead section and in an identical context as the third reference; Wikipedia policy is generally that lead section doesn't need to have references if the same information appears in the body and is referenced there. It was Looie's suggestion, not mine, to remove the reference, so if you disagree you might want to address him at the article talk page. Politizer talk/contribs 14:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring on Mismatch negativity
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mismatch negativity. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
You have already been asked several times to explain your position more clearly, and to respond to the most recent issues raised at the talk page; I have taken the time to contact other areas of Wikipedia and bring in an uninvolved editor for a second opinion, and have followed this editor's advice in keeping the references in. If you want to remove the references, you will need to provide some good reasons to do so, rather than just repeatedly undoing our edits. Politizer talk/contribs 14:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)