- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Brianhe (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I see that you are a relatively inexperienced editor. You appear to be attempting to have your way at Willem de Kooning by edit-warring. Please don't. It never leads anywhere good. If you make an edit and it is reverted, discuss rather than making the same edit again. Please read WP:BRD.
You might like to revise your understanding of some of the basic principles of English grammar before you make too many more incorrect "corrections". Specifically:
- "none" is singular and therefore takes a singular verb; it is, as must be obvious, an abbreviation of "not one" or "not a one" – which, equally obviously, are also singular
- your statement that " 'Were' or 'was' are the past subjunctive form/mood of the verb 'To Be'. It is used in hypothetical/fantasy scenarios" contains a glimmering of truth; "were" and "was" are indeed parts of the verb to be; "were" is the present subjunctive, while "was" is not a subjunctive at all (though it occasionally gets used as if it were)
- The subjunctive is not used in simple statements of historical fact, such as that in the article. He did some designs; none of them was ever executed; end of story. "Was", the third person singular of the simple past, is the correct tense here.
Hi. Thank you for your concerns. Your use of English in this context is incorrect. I appreciate your overzealous concern for a single word. Perhaps your sense of possession and experience at Wikipedia have hindered your understanding of language. Here I am only interested in preserving proper grammatical flow.
Your initial response and correction statement was petulant and antagonistic in the face of my correct edit.
I hope you will take accountability for recognizing such and leave the correct and current use of the word, as is.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Willem de Kooning. 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 be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Quick to re-revert on SFAI page
I see you've had a few notices here about recent edit warring. I reverted your edit on San_Francisco_Art_Institute#Painting because in the past the entry has been filled with links to alumni. Oliver Arms, the painter you added, does not seem as notable as the other painters on the list. I say so because he has fewer exhibitions, in smaller venues, a shorter history, etc. Since you are the primary editor of Oliver Arms entry, you may not have the same perspective. If you think he should be listed, rather than reverting again, you can start a discussion on the talk page.
Also, I am by no means a primary contributor to the SFAI page. I have mostly moved alumni into a category to keep the entry from becoming a long list of hundreds of alumni, as it has in the past. --Dronthego (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)