No edit summary |
→Translation: adding 3RR notice information |
||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
:: I noticed that your recent edits to [[Translation]] were all reverted. I just glanced through them, not trying to understand the substance of anything. However, I did notice that quite a lot of the comments look like they belong on the talk page. Let me suggest that you put actual editorial changes in the main page, and personal questions or opinions in the talk page. I would also suggest that you follow the citation guidelines - a paraphrase in the main text and a footnote with a reference to the written authority. |
:: I noticed that your recent edits to [[Translation]] were all reverted. I just glanced through them, not trying to understand the substance of anything. However, I did notice that quite a lot of the comments look like they belong on the talk page. Let me suggest that you put actual editorial changes in the main page, and personal questions or opinions in the talk page. I would also suggest that you follow the citation guidelines - a paraphrase in the main text and a footnote with a reference to the written authority. |
||
:: I also understand why you may wish to contribute anonymously. Whether you have an ID or not really does not matter, IMHO. What does matter is whether the edits are part of the cooperative effort to produce a readable article. [[User:Cbdorsett|Cbdorsett]] 07:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
:: I also understand why you may wish to contribute anonymously. Whether you have an ID or not really does not matter, IMHO. What does matter is whether the edits are part of the cooperative effort to produce a readable article. [[User:Cbdorsett|Cbdorsett]] 07:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
I should add that you've been engaging in what is referred to as an [[WP:3RR|edit war]] according to the reverts you have made on Translation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">†</span>]]</small> 07:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:28, 4 September 2007
Welcome
|
Translation
While I admire the vast amount of content and obvious expertise you bring to the article on Translation, you must work within the bounds of Wikipedia policy and guideline. A number of your edits are disputed, the language has been questioned and sources are needed. You need to communicate with the other editors on the talk page so you can all work together. Dreadstar † 05:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I do talk, look at the discussion, indeed. I get no responses other than rogue vandalism. eurominuteman
- Yes, I've looked at the discussion, and you'll have to pardon me if I don't quite see where you have tried to cooperate and work with the other editors. I shan't point out some of your more antanogisic comments, but I advise toning down the conversation a bit. No one is here to make a "childish" "dumbed down" article, we're writing for the general reader, not just the professionals in the field. I would strongly suggest you create an ID per Wikipedia:Why create an account, which says:
Why should formatting issues help? These antangonists are against the structure and content. By the way, I have registered last year, but in this case I choose to remain outside. The scale of psychological resistance against the facts proves the gravity of this choice.
- Resistance is futile in the face of well sourced and well written content. This is an open online encyclopedia, and I don't see evidence of any "psychological resistance" against the facts by any of those who are disputing your edits. I would also suggest you review WP:CIV and WP:3RR Dreadstar † 06:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed that your recent edits to Translation were all reverted. I just glanced through them, not trying to understand the substance of anything. However, I did notice that quite a lot of the comments look like they belong on the talk page. Let me suggest that you put actual editorial changes in the main page, and personal questions or opinions in the talk page. I would also suggest that you follow the citation guidelines - a paraphrase in the main text and a footnote with a reference to the written authority.
- I also understand why you may wish to contribute anonymously. Whether you have an ID or not really does not matter, IMHO. What does matter is whether the edits are part of the cooperative effort to produce a readable article. Cbdorsett 07:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I should add that you've been engaging in what is referred to as an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Translation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Dreadstar † 07:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)