Rivertorch (talk | contribs) m →December 2012: fix date |
Bellerophon (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
Hi. In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neolithic_signs_in_China&action=historysubmit&diff=469362585&oldid=469362136 this edit], you moved a footnote relating to one paragraph to a quite different paragraph. Apart from the fact that the footnote addressed the dating mentioned in the original paragraph, this also misrepresents the citation. [[User talk:Kanguole|Kanguole]] 18:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. In [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neolithic_signs_in_China&action=historysubmit&diff=469362585&oldid=469362136 this edit], you moved a footnote relating to one paragraph to a quite different paragraph. Apart from the fact that the footnote addressed the dating mentioned in the original paragraph, this also misrepresents the citation. [[User talk:Kanguole|Kanguole]] 18:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=|link=]] This is your '''only warning'''; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at [[:Writing]], you may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further notice'''. <!-- Template:uw-delete4im --> [[User:Pol430|<font color="#00008B">'''Pol430'''</font>]] [[User talk:Pol430|''talk to me'']] 12:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:''If this is a [[closed proxy|shared IP address]], and you didn't make the edit, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> |
Revision as of 12:21, 6 January 2012
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Module (programming)
Please don't revert an article, like Module (programming), without providing an explanation. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- The explanation is simple: now is better. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Your improper edits to Database
- This section was removed from this page by 99.90.197.87 and put in Talk:Database. Please do not remove others' comments from your talk page, especially if negative. Thanks --Comps (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
You have recently edited Database multiple times, and most edits have been improper (for many reasons; see History and discussion there) and reverted. Pls propose edits in the discussion page, without destroying carefully written text. --Comps (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- What are the other reasons ? Do not let guess ! 99.90.197.87 (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Database. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently you are blind judged when you cant see kilobytes of discussion 99.90.197.87. Anyway keep the art protected for sales advertising carnage. Why you do not eg kick user Comps For putting phony <refs>?. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, you were edit warring and that's that. I actually trust Comps' text (please jassume good faith.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- You trust Comps who violate WP:VER. Comps refuse to put title and author of ref he put in article (and subsequently change {fact|*reason*}. For all other, Comps entry have to be only trusted since can not be verified 99.90.197.87 (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- 17:13, 3 November 2011 Comps (talk | contribs) (104,039 bytes) (article and author needed in the ref) (undo): An entry in Database history. Check the article change and compare date to your claim date above. You repeat and repeat and repeat... an incorrect claim. I have never refused. Out of line as often. I have described to you how the info can be found (subscription or library), and I'll do it when I can, if no other one does. How did you know the author name and exact Fortune issue number? Do you have it and refuse to disclose for some reason? --Comps (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- 'How did you
know[suspect/ask if] the author name and exact Fortune issue number?' < how?: plain simply - by search engine. So far there is no confirmatory answer by user Comps to the WP:VER issue. The eventual verification will cost some $ since this is closed source (to read one had to pay), is worthless to purchase access to magazine issue instead of one article. Whiteout knowing , (there is obvious difference between: knowing for sure or being pointed in direction), one can just waste money trying to verify the info user Comps put as a ref. So user Comps have all the information, user Comps have on hand the magazine , where from user Comps excerpt the data, why is so hard for user Comps to put: the author, title and page number? . 99.90.197.87 (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC) - As an alternative solution to WP:VER issue; user Comps can also admit user Comps didn't get this numbers from the magazine user Comps had on hand(or rather not have on hand/eye), and so user Comps can't provide the page number, the author and the title.
- As usual you assume assumptions and accuse baseless accusations. You imagine something, and this should be the truth. No other possibility. If I slightly suspected it was not a correct citation (though incomplete), I would remove it long time ago, even without your accusations. Truth and accuracy are important to me, not just in Wikipedia. I know the article and author names by now, using the same tool you used to find your info. I do not have the Fortune issue on hand, and want to see it in my own eyes before adding the missing info. I already gave an answer on this more than once, and wonder if such repeated accusations of yours, after you saw my answer several times, are tolerable by Wikipedia. I answer here just to make a note about your behavior, not to explain beyond what I have explained earlier. --Comps (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- 'How did you
- 17:13, 3 November 2011 Comps (talk | contribs) (104,039 bytes) (article and author needed in the ref) (undo): An entry in Database history. Check the article change and compare date to your claim date above. You repeat and repeat and repeat... an incorrect claim. I have never refused. Out of line as often. I have described to you how the info can be found (subscription or library), and I'll do it when I can, if no other one does. How did you know the author name and exact Fortune issue number? Do you have it and refuse to disclose for some reason? --Comps (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- You trust Comps who violate WP:VER. Comps refuse to put title and author of ref he put in article (and subsequently change {fact|*reason*}. For all other, Comps entry have to be only trusted since can not be verified 99.90.197.87 (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, you were edit warring and that's that. I actually trust Comps' text (please jassume good faith.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
November 2011
Your recent editing history at Human evolution shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You are edit warring, which is prohibited. Please stop reverting at Human evolution. Rivertorch (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Human evolution. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Your text is nearly incomprehensible; it is very difficult to distinguish between it and vandalism. I suggest, if your native language is not English, posting to the Wikipedia appropriate for your native language. Allens (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
From my talk page (User_talk:Allens)
- What are you talking about? Try best and just show by diff. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Try saying "Try your best and just show what you mean using a diff". And read and try to follow the Manual of Style. Allens (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- If user Allens insist. Yes, try your best and just show what you mean using a diff . (note: However "such" wording imply logical preposition, which was not considered exactly.) 99.90.197.87 (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Please take this as constructive criticism. Why might someone like Allens find your edits to be "nearly incomprehensible" and suggest your native language is not English? You wanted a diff. Try this one: [1] where you added the sentence: "Already in 2005 present-day multilocus DNA reject (P < 10-17) archaic Eurasia population replacement postulated in recent African origin." What is wrong with this? "Already in 2005" implies a progress toward the current understanding, which is not appropriate in this case. "Already in 2005, present-day" - 2005 is not present day. If you meant present-day as 2005, it is superfluous, otherwise just wrong, if it was modifying multi-locus, then it is nonsensical. "Multilocus DNA" is meaningless, as all DNA more than one base pair long is multi-locus. "DNA reject" - DNA is singular so the appropriate verb form is 'rejects'. "DNA reject" - DNA is inanimate - it doesn't do anything (other than, with loose use of the language, it replicates, degrades, mutates, although more precisely, it is replicated, degraded, mutated - it is acted upon, rather than acting). It certainly doesn't reject anything. Rather, 'multi-locus allelic analysis of DNA has led a scientist to reject' something. "(P < 10-17)" - I know what you are trying to say, but most readers won't know that you are presenting a measure of statistical significance, completely meaningless to anyone unfamiliar with scientific use of statistical analyses, and hence the vast majority of our readership. "Archaic Eurasian population replacement postulated" is a string of words that all run together - as written you can't tell if was a population of archaic Eurasians, an archaic population of Eurasians, or an archaic replacement of a Eurasian population. It takes several reads to parse the intent. A string of complex words is best broken up and specified ("replacement of the archaic-European population that was postulated. . ."). "Postulated in recent African origin" - you can't postulate IN an origin, as if origin was a place: "postulated by the recent" would be better. "Recent African origin" - the origin itself is not postulating doing anything. Rather it is the theory regarding the origin that is at play, hence "postulated by the recent African origin THEORY" So, your whole sentence is "nearly incomprehensible', just as Allens suggested. It might have been better expressed, "In 2005, a multi-locus allelic analysis of human DNA resulted in rejection of the complete replacement of the archaic-European population that had been postulated by the Recent African Origin model", or something of the sort. Only then can we discuss whether the sentence actually belongs in the lede or not.
There is room in English Wikipedia for people whose English language skills are imperfect, but they bear an extra burden. It is important that you recognize the problem: it is hard to have productive discussions over content when the text you are fighting for is virtually unreadable. You also need to be careful about entering into content disputes over the meaning of words with native speakers, as, even if you are right, you are unlikely to persuade others of that fact if you cannot communicate better than the above sentence. Finally, you might want to turn the intensity level down a scoche. Currently you are coming across like a bull in a china shop. You will find it a much more productive approach to work with other editors, discussing problems and agreeing upon solutions, rather than against them, charging in with incoherent prose and then edit warring to restore it when it is inevitably reverted or modified. Agricolae (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's what I meant, explained rather better than I had the patience for. Allens (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Human evolution
So when I wrote "How about you give me just a little bit of time to respond rather than a knee-jerk revert" did you not understand the request, or did you decide to disregard it? Agricolae (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Human evolution shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Human evolution. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. Changing the order is not appropriate, either. You're changing the context. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Neanderthal edits
Maet is not how meat is spelled, and week is not the same as weak, unless I am missing something. About the tag, please discuss it on the talk page rather than just tagging the article without any explanation. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for because the edits are all incomprehensible, wrong (or at least without any source) where comprehensible, and contain enough misspelled words and grammatical errors to suggest that the user has no knowledge of the English language. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text— Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Cro-Magnon. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This really has to stop, please read WP:NPA. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
January 2012
Hi. In this edit, you moved a footnote relating to one paragraph to a quite different paragraph. Apart from the fact that the footnote addressed the dating mentioned in the original paragraph, this also misrepresents the citation. Kanguole 18:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Writing, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Pol430 talk to me 12:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.