User talk:Codeatlas2112

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


Hello, Codeatlas2112, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Additions to Tessellation need references[edit]

Hi Codeatlas2112, I saw you added a section to Tessellation about computer graphics, but didn't support this with any references. Normally I'd revert this immediately but since you're new, I'd like to ask you to add a reference to the source of your information, something like this: <ref>Doe, John (2013) ''Modern Computer Graphics''. Doe Press. Pages 123–125.</ref> See WP:REFB for details. Thanks - Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Please do not edit-war. I have reverted your undiscussed addition - as I've noted above, there would need to be proper citations, but more, the additions need to be relevant to the topic of the article, and I'm not persuaded of that. the article is about the abstract subject of tessellation. You may be right, it may be possible to write an article about the application of simple rectangular tiling to computer graphics, but frankly it has very little to do with the subject of the variety of ways that a place can be tessellated.

The Wikipedia method of reaching agreement is to discuss a subject so that everyone understands the different points of view, and a reasonable solution can be reached. Just repeatedly thrusting forth your piece of text when you already know it is disputed is not part of this method. If you believe good sources can be found to show why and how your piece of text is notable, and further that it adds something to a fundamental article on the theory of the subject, then of course we'll consider it. Until then - it doesn't belong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)