Jump to content

User talk:Speednat/Archive/2013/Apr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

[edit]

Abacus

[edit]

Please read WP:BRD and don't edit war. Discuss on the article talk page if you disagree with a reversion. SpinningSpark 18:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no edit warring. I disagreed with your revert, I did not undo, but I added what I felt was pertinent information that was incorrectly reverted. How is adding more information to an article, which is missing chunks of information, incorrect. I backed up all of my additions with references, and even with the caveat that the information is weak at best. How is no information better than some information with a caveat?

What you are doing is edit warring, you are not discussing, you are reverting any change that you do not agree with, and finally BRD is not a policy, but a choice, if you had actually read the page, you would see that. speednat (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact if you read the following


   BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit  warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.

   BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

If you do not like the changes, perhaps as per your BRD page you should open the discussion. cordially speednat (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Speednat, I thought you had inserted exactly the same edit when Dougweller reverted. I was wrong. Sorry again. By the way, I never said BRD was policy, but it is a good method of avoiding edit warring. SpinningSpark 21:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I appreciate your apology. Not often enough do people apologize. I am glad that there was no head-butting :) speednat (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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 theDPL WikiProject.

Tinamou (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Rhea, Tarsus, Puna, Varzea, Tola and Amazon
A (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Line, Segment, Ray and Insular

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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 theDPL WikiProject.

Cinereous Tinamou (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Gmelin and Varzea
Abbey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to St. Bruno
Crypturellus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rail
Tinaminae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Varzea

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

[edit]

Concerning Tubulidentata edits

[edit]

I undid your edits concerning aardvarks/Tubulidentata being sixty million years old, as there are no unequivocal fossil aardvarks from the early Cenozoic. The oldest unequivocal aardvark fossils date from the early Miocene. I think the Encyclopedia Britannica's sentence about the order being sixty million years old may represent the authors' confusing it with Paenungulata (i.e., aardvarks plus hyraxes, proboscideans, sirenians and embrithopods).--Mr Fink (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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 theDPL WikiProject.

Aalen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Croatian
Alvar Aalto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Salem

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

[edit]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Speednat/Archive/2013/Apr&oldid=1075179528"