User talk:Olathe

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


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Liberty Dollar.jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Liberty Dollar.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Pythagorean proof.png[edit]

Someone tagged File:Pythagorean proof.png as "lacking a source". If you created the image yourself, let me know, and I will fix the image page. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Molyneux[edit]

You've undone my changes which, as stated in my edit summary removed excessive detail, self-promotion, and trivia, and removed text that is either unsourced or for which the citations are not Reliable Source. Please review WP:RS WP:OR WP:BRD. Per BRD, the next step after I reverted the text should be for you to use the talk page to resolve any disagreement you may have, not to reinsert the content that I reverted for policy-based reasons. Please undo your recent edits and pursue your views on talk to seek prior consensus for your view that it should be reinserted. Merely asserting your rationale for your undo on talk is not sufficient. Please review WP:EW and be aware that such behavior can result in you being blocked. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. 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 controversial 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.

You have 2 reverts on Molyneux. Please use talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I haven't made 2 recent reverts on Molyneux at this time. Your disrespectful tone in ordering me around and lack of seeking consensus on the talk page has, however, been noted. — Olathe (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Please review the associated policies. [1] [2] and refrain from edit-warring. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I have refrained from edit warring. I made two successive edits, which, even ignoring the substance of the edits, does not count as two reverts, since those are sort of like "rounds in a battle" (i.e., you change, I revert, you unrevert, I rerevert) rather than immediately successive changes (which is clear from the edit history).
Looking at the substance of the edits, the second one you linked to is completely unrelated to your recent changes. It has nothing to do with a revert of your changes, and can thus have nothing to do with an edit war. I don't want an edit war, which is why, when you unreverted my revert, I haven't bothered to try to reinstate it. Instead of edit warring, I opened a section on the talk page almost immediately after my revert.
In that section, when I asked for clarification on the article's talk page, you said "Once you have undone your reinsertion I will respond to your concerns." As I said on the talk page, this was the opposite of seeking consensus, since seeking consensus was being held hostage to my compliance with your orders. This imperious tone was repeated later on, when you said "Since you refuse to undo your edit, I will do it for you..." It wasn't, as you portrayed it there, my job to undo my edit. It's not at all correct that I failed at my job with you correcting my willful lapse. This sort of casting me as someone disobedient to your just orders is not something that I want to continue to deal with, which is also contrary to your portrayal of me as an edit warrior. I also don't want to continue to deal with false accusations and lack of explanation other than simple linking to entire policies.
I don't mind responding on the talk page if you want to talk about why you think the parts you deleted specifically violate policy. I'm personally particularly interested in why you deleted the quote by Mr. Molyneux in the criticism section, which is why I opened, several months ago, a section on the talk page to discuss my additions. I think any such explanations by you of why those policies you mention apply would add to the discussion on the talk page, and would allow responses to your points. — Olathe (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Algebraic normal form may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • (logical disjunction) uses De Morgan's laws (that is, x + y = (x ⊕ 1)(y ⊕ 1) ⊕ 1)):

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)