|Welcome to Dewritech's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply.|
Regarding my changes to the Spatial anit-aliasing page
Hello Dewritech, you wrote: >> I noticed that you made a change to an article, Spatial anti-aliasing, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! <<
I don't have a citation. The page I edited had a code snippet that I tried to use but it didn't work. I debugged the problems myself (which is why I have no citation) and updated the page with what I found. The two problems I found were:
1) without the "1 - " that I added, the algorithm was saying that a point at 5.3 for example is 30% close to 5 and 70% close to 6 which is backwards. Without my changes, you can notice unsightly discontinuities in the result. With my changes, the output looks as it should.
2) the second change I made is explained in the Note I added so I won't repeat the explanation. Quite simply, you can't allow points that have small components at a given pixel, wipe out the large components that are already there due to other points. If you do that (as the original algorithm instructs), you end up with a very dark, completely wrong picture.
I don't know how to contact the original authors of the page, but I would bet if you ran my changes by them, they would agree.
Ethnic conflict article
I removed several paragraphs from this article which were entirely unrelated to the topic - they talked about constructivism in education, which is entirely different to constructivism in the study of ethnic conflict. I explained this on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnic_conflict#Constructivism_section. Please don't revert what is a constructive and explained edit for no reason! 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Deutsche Reichsbahn shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Phil Copperman (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Reverting vandalism.-- Dewritech (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Jorge Horacio Brito
Hello Dewritech! I made som changes that you have reverted at Jorge Horacio Brito page that you have reverted. If you see the Talk Section on Jorge Horacio Brito you will find out that the information that I have removed is fake, unsourced and biased. Please, let me keep it. Many thanks. --Superagente86 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems that you did not read anything on the Dicussion page and you still say that I am vandalzing Wikipedia. Please, take two minutes to read the information that was erased. They are considering Wikileaks as a source? Can you explain me how can you allow that? --Superagente86 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Dewritech! I saw that you have undone some constructive changes made by Superagente86. The information he erased is unreliable (even the sourced) so he have improved the article instead of vandalize it. I invite you to read the Talk page so you can read what kind of information you have kept when you undid the changes. --Danielseo451 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Dewritech! Thank you for the edits you made on the above page. You will notice the user again reverted your edits to remove the sourced content. Im a little concerned that there are three users attempting to make the same edits using the same arguments. I try to always assume good faith, but a wondering if this is suspicious enough activity to suspect someone is abusing multiple accounts to win an edit war. Thoughts? DaltonCastle (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Dewritech, I can't believe that you still insist on removing the changed I made without reading the article, de Talk Page and my explanation. I don't know why but DaltonCastle has a suspicious interest in leaving fake, unreliable sourced and biased content in Wikipedia. That is why I made that changes and why many other users had supported me. If you look the contributions made by DaltonCastle you will realized that they are all biased and based on not proven facts! Please, take a few minutes to analyze the changes and discuss them on the Talk Page. Greetings, --Superagente86 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Those are false allegations. I provided sourced content that was removed by three editors who have the same arguments. These also are not conspiracy theories, they are provided in reliable sources indicating there is sufficient notability to include on the page. Dewritech, can we enlist the help of some other editors? I once again see more info has been pulled down. I am trying my best to assume good faith, but it is becoming increasingly difficult with the potential socking occurring. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
If we talk about good faith I believe that it's you the user who should not be trusted on. Many of your contributions that you did are based on media articles that clomplaint felonies that have not been proven by any judge yet. This kind of information is not supported in Wikiepdia because are not real facts. You can put this information here when a judge condemn them for any felony, but now it's not serious to write about this in Wikipedia. That is why I made those changes and erased that kind of content. Come on DaltonCastle! You know that Wikipedia does not support this kind of information, but only but Argentineans understand it because they are involved in daily information. I hope you understand. Greetings! --Superagente86 (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Those sources are reliable. Any page in all of Wikipedia would include notable details if they were covered in reliable sources. Removing these details is cherrypicking to avoid details certain people do not like. That does not improve Wikipedia. Especially given that much of the information you added uses unreliable and primary sources to add puffery to the page. Do you think its fair to go against your own arguments to add the information you want on the page? DaltonCastle (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks re: VeggieTales
Hey there, thanks for your assist here. For background, many articles related to VeggieTales are routinely vandalized. In the reverted content you'll notice absurd credits like "Cowboy Carrots with Light Blue Kerchief and Green Cowboy Hat as Themselves". These "characters" are entirely fabricated. My suspicion is that some kid came up with names for them and is trying to make them stick. The descriptions appear to exist almost solely at Wikia. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)