| Revision as of 16:41, 11 January 2015 editPktlaurence (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,553 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:59, 14 January 2015 edit undoRob984 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,101 edits Warning: Edit warring. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| Hey bloke, thank you for all your supports anyway. I've been locked in bitter revisions for my exam previously and had dropped Misplaced Pages for sometime, and somehow forgotten most of the operations of Misplaced Pages. Glad to meet a friendly Wikipedian that give me so much guise BTW. Best regards, ] (]) 16:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | Hey bloke, thank you for all your supports anyway. I've been locked in bitter revisions for my exam previously and had dropped Misplaced Pages for sometime, and somehow forgotten most of the operations of Misplaced Pages. Glad to meet a friendly Wikipedian that give me so much guise BTW. Best regards, ] (]) 16:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
| Please be particularly aware that ] states: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''. | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| In particular, editors should be aware of the ], 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 Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, '''breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]'''. | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 16:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:59, 14 January 2015
Third Crusade icons
Hi,
Most early and high Medieval states did not have national flags, indeed the concept of a nation hardly existed. As a result, trying to treat participants in a conflict as if they were modern nations with definite flags is very dubious. For example you have used the cross of St. George to indicate the English crusaders, when the use of this flag as an English national banner only stabilised after 1346. It is better, at a time when even heraldry was in an undeveloped state, to use the device of the leader to represent the polity he led. Thanks for your efforts, but I think that they have been misplaced in this instance. Urselius (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
September 2014
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Byzantine Empire, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Please start a discussion in the article's talk page explaining why you altered such controversial information without considering consensus. JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
A request
Hello, independently of our difference of opinions on Byzantine empire, can I request one thing please: when you edit, please make it a habit to always include an informative edit summary for what you are doing. You are making many successive changes to a lot of different articles, some of them potentially controversial, and without edit summaries it is very difficult to figure out what you are doing and why. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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 the DPL WikiProject.
- Kingdom of Naples
- added a link pointing to Aragonese
- Third Crusade
- added a link pointing to Tyre
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Winchester rifle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Semi-automatic. 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deluge (history), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principality of Transylvania. 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
January 2015
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Lordship of Ireland, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. DeCausa (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Here are some tips for you:
- Orhan and Osman had the title bey. Murad was the first to take the title sultan. Before throwing out a personal attack check your facts at least.
- The date you changed in that article was one that said "some historians" claimed that date i.e. it was an alternative per source.
- When you post on a talk page (as you attempted to do on mine) you should place it at the bottom of the page (there's even a tab called "new section" to help you) and sign it by typing ~~~~
- But above all put edit summaries in your edits explaining why you've made the edit, especially when you are reverted. You won't be taken seriously otherwise. I see that others have complained about that before.
DeCausa (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Another point:it's more effective to post on the article talk page rather than individual user talk page. DeCausa (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- We're getting there! I'm glad you opened the article talk page thread but you shouldn't have reverted. If you're the editor that wants to change an article but you meet opposition, you must not revert until you have gained consensus support on the article talk page. If you revert before then you could end up being blocked for edit-warring. Read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS DeCausa (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey bloke, thank you for all your supports anyway. I've been locked in bitter revisions for my exam previously and had dropped Misplaced Pages for sometime, and somehow forgotten most of the operations of Misplaced Pages. Glad to meet a friendly Wikipedian that give me so much guise BTW. Best regards, Pktlaurence (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2015 (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 that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
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 Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. Rob984 (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)