User talk:OtisDixon

Cleanup on PseudoScience

Nice job on the cleanup there - despite the error referenced above! :-) Alex Jackl (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On reverting

Hello OtisDixon. I noticed that you only partly reverted troublesome edits at Creation Museum and Answers in Genesis. 122.62.47.30's edits were very problematic and should simply have been undone using the undo feature. Otherwise, the result is confusing for other editors who must then revert to an older revision of the article to undo both your partial change and the older problematic edits (what McSly and IronGargoyle did, respectively). When someone performs many changes at once (especially with a deceptive edit summary) and that only some of those changes are correct, if any, it's always best to undo the whole edit and to expect the editor to discuss on the article talk page and to gradually restore edits in more auditable groups (per WP:BRD) so each modification can reflect consensus. We can of course all make mistakes and this is not a warning but a friendly reminder about the use of the undo feature. Thank you, —Paleo Neonate - 01:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't look at everything edited, I just noticed a link that needed repaired. --OtisDixon (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference styles

Per WP:CITEVAR, please do not change the referencing from one style to another, as you did at British Tanker Company. If you write an article and use that style of referencing then that is the style of referencing in use. I would defend it against being changed, but it works both ways. Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

You have been given notice of the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience above. You are edit warring on a topic where the DS are very clearly at play.

Your recent editing history at Creationism 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harv/sfn

Please make sure that the source is already listed and includes the |harv= parameter when converting a citation to shortened footnotes. The source is otherwise lost. Moreover, shortened footnotes are only useful in cases where multiple notes refer to the same source but to different pages of it. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 21:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have audited your changes at List of topics characterized as pseudoscience and have restored lost sources. The next time I see you remove a source I'll have to report you. —Paleo Neonate – 04:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]