- 1 thank you for the link
- 2 Not Ignoring You
- 3 Derren Brown
- 4 Article Feedback Tool update
- 5 David Attenborough
- 6 Disambiguation link notification for March 18
- 7 Disambiguation link notification for August 5
- 8 read sources
- 9 Mythology etc
- 10 Disambiguation link notification for November 12
- 11 "Influential" and positive connotations
- 12 March 2015
- 13 Edit war at Chiropractic
- 14 June 2015
I have been working quite a bit on the PROTECT IP page and appreciate the help. I think torrentfreak should count as a specialized news source and so should techdirt (and yes, I have seen the debunking on that page, just have not had time to work with it...) but we have an advocate for the bill (apparently) among the page editors and as I recall he rejects these as sources. Nonetheless, I had not seen this one and it probably links to something even he will have to accept. Elinruby (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Not Ignoring You
Greetings, Just a quick note to say I am not ignoring you but rather I am traveling where places one can access both mobile phone and internet access are few and far between. I will try to get enough access time to reply within the next three days. Sorry for holding your editing efforts up. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- No problems and thanks a lot for telling me that. Few people on the internet bother tell people that they are away nowdays. Smk65536 (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I invite you to discuss your edit to Derren Brown on the talk page. "It's pseudo science and I don't like it" is not a reason for removing content. The fact is that it has been said of Brown a number of times, and Brown himself has responded to it. The content is cited and well suited to the article. It takes no position whatsoever on the validity of neuro-linguistic programming. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- "It's pseudo science and I don't like it" is of course, not a reason for removing content, pseudo-science is a valid topic to discuss and criticize, but it cannot be assumed correct in any article, which is : my point instead. The article DOES take a position on it's validity, "uses neuro-linguistic programming", in the past tense suggests that it is in fact a valid technique which can be used. Compare this to : "uses witchcraft to conjure up the dead". If this topic comes up often, then the paragraph needs re-writing. 23:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Smk65536. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I see you're wrestling with a section title on this article. I'm afraid that 'Irreligion' has pejorative overtones entirely inappropriate for Attenborough, if not for the encyclopedia. Something like 'Attitude to religion' might be somewhat better; we are not constrained to seeking a single-word section heading. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neo-Nazism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-LGBT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dynamic programming language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Python. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please take care to read sources before changing works like "Incarnation" to "birth". Blackburn and Holford-Strevens took care in their book, published by Oxford University Press, to point out it is impossible with surviving records to be sure if Dionysius Exiguus intended to commemorate the annunciation or the nativity of Jesus when he created Anno Domini. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to revert you, I know this kind of thing can be a bit of a shock, but I don't think there is any call to remove the bulk of the mythology, folklore and tribal storytelling about whales, especially when we want to have international coverage and the material is properly cited. Happy to discuss details, but in broad terms the article correctly has material of this kind (take a look at comparable articles to see the usual approach). All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Could you please discuss any further changes to this article on the talk page rather than making hasty changes which will very likely not be agreed by other editors? The time of the Old Testament is, for example, quite sufficient to indicate a span through much of recorded history back to documented instances. If you want to add "better examples", that's fine but find sources for them and discuss them first on the talk page. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh good. Nothing there is based on religion; the lead is based on the text in the body of the article, which quite rightly uses the sources available, which include the OT. The job of the lead is to reflect the body; if anything's wrong, it's the body that needs work, which nearly always means finding more sources and working back from there. The lead is the last thing to touch. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of games using Scaleform, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sleeping Dogs. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
"Influential" and positive connotations
It's only got a positive connotation if you believe it does - it doesn't. Just look at Time magazine's most influential list, Osama Bin Laden is in there. Does that mean Time believe he is a positive influence? An influence is neither positive or negative. Timeshift (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm MrX. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Brendan Eich seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - MrX 12:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Edit war at Chiropractic
Your recent editing history 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.
You have now reverted four times over the same material at article Chiropractic.
- You first reverted the material in last June after which it got restored by another editor
- Now, you have made the same revert 06:46, 2 May 2015, but the material got restored again by another user
- You further reverted 01:19, 3 May 2015, and the material got restored
- Even further, you reverted over the same material again
- Looking at those revisions, it appears that it was you who were reverting and heavily engaging in what you call "edit wars" above. If you were so keen for others to not engage in "edit wars", perhaps you should follow your own advice, from your talk page it appears that you engage in edit wars quite frequently and have come very close to being blocked from editing pseudoscience related articles. Having said that, I do not recall editing this material last year. I would be happy to engage in discussion in the talk page to reach a consensus. I am going to do so now and would welcome your input. Smk65536 (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've restored the material twice: 10:50, 3 May 2015 and 11:59, 3 May 2015. I am glad to know that you are ready to take this discussion to the article Talk Page now instead of continuing to revert the material without discussion. Please notice that I am just one of three editors that have restored the material after your reverts. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Omega Point. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 07:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)