User talk:71.247.231.74

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Warning[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Phenomenology. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Rbellin|Talk 09:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • How dare you to abuse the Wikipedia's Reverting policy and threaten me with WP:3RR. Please, read first, what Reverting requires, before threatening.
  • You accused me of an alleged violation, because of a disagreement argued by you that "the lead sentence is the place for clarity, not Heideggeresque etymological muddles". Please, be reminded that the Reverting policy says: reverting is not to be used as a way to "ignore" or "refute" an editor with whom one happens to disagree. How much do you think your point of view matters in comparison with a Heidegger's deduction. Did you publish your point of view? Is it a reference?
  • My edits were labeled/I was accused of: "completely misleading etymology", "the etymology is incorrect", "you have obfuscated the meaning of the key sentence describing Husserl". PROVE IT, please!
  • I provided a solid justification and references:
1. A translation of a foreign language term customarily follows it immediately.
2. The translation was correct.
3. The translation was relevant since Heidegger did it.
4. Relevant references were provided in response.

It seems my edits were made in good WP:FAITH and not to instigate WP:WAR.

  • Please, do not abuse Wikipedia's policies. --71.247.231.74 (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
You've clearly and repeatedly been reverting the article to your preferred version, against an apparent consensus of several other (non-anonymous) editors. Please use the article's Talk page to discuss the changes instead of making ad-hominem accusations. -- Rbellin|Talk 03:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
WE all can count to three (3) and 24 hours - can we...? Since when different versions are a "preferred version"...? Since when quoting Wikipedia regulations is ad-hominem...? --71.247.231.74 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignatius of Loyola[edit]

You're clearly not a native speaker of English - which is fine, but I would urge a little more caution when arguing about style or making (on the face of it) rather hasty changes that sound better to your ears. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hence, since Wikipedia is for everyone including non-native English speakers, the articles should be written clearly (WP:Manual of Style#Clarity) in plain English (WP:UPE) easy accessible to non-native English speakers too for Wikipedia is not a tutorial of English. Isn't it, please? --71.247.231.74 (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The expression "turn into" implies that he, well, shape-changed. A caterpiller can "turn into" a butterfly or a kitten into a tomcat but you simply cannot use that expression in that sentence you keep trying to change. And please be mindful of WP:3RR, you're coming close to edit warring. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, please don't continue to revert. Another friendly reminder of WP:3RR, also. The Simple English Wikipedia is for stuff like this. As mentioned above, you're distorting the meaning, and grammar. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ignatius of Loyola. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Connormah (talk | contribs) 16:38, 15 February 2010 (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 comments on English in Ignatius of Loyola talk page[edit]

In response to a comment of yours at Talk:Ignatius of Loyola about "plain English" I have posted a comment on your editing, and in particular about your use of English. you may like to read it: I hope it helps to clarify things for you. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --71.247.231.74 (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)