| Revision as of 04:40, 20 July 2012 editBelchfire (talk | contribs)4,207 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:50, 31 August 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)Tags: AWB Replaced | ||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| {{SharedIP|host=24.45.42.125}} | |||
| ==Your recent edits== | |||
| ] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should ] by typing four ]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button ] or ] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --] (]) 01:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Unconstructive; Mass reverts generally frowned on == | |||
| Hi; noticed your mass revert of several referenced and justified edits in the Sandra Fluke article. Also noticed a short edit history, so am assuming good faith, that you may be unfamiliar with WP process. It is not generally a good idea to mass revert, especially when individual edits are justified, as there is no way to know what editorial judgement you are contesting. Indiscriminately hitting the "undo" button, called reverting, is called edit warring, and can result in automatic bans. For instance, the biography section that was edited was clipped to remove sections that are poorly sourced, and thus not allowed according to BLP guidelines. This should NOT be reverted unless you have a good source to justify these sections. Reverting minor edits, such as specifying that Fluke was a law student when invited to Congress, can be seen as disruptive also, and subject to banning. Am going to undo your reversion of my edits; don't mind if you then make JUSTIFIED, stepwise alterations - it is understood that editors may disagree. I would however direct you to the rather extensive discussions on Talk (where discussions of edits should take place) where NPOV compromises were made, and from which I took several stable (ie agreed upon) descriptions. Good luck, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 02:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, but your changes were correctly reverted by someone else for adding bias. ] (]) 03:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Just to say... == | |||
| I loved your edit summary ] (]) 22:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you. ] (]) 22:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Good work on the zombies == | |||
| I liked what you did for p-zombies and physicalism, btw.—] 00:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Oh ye of little faith... {{diff|Multiverse|501062942|501049229|06:41, 7 July 2012}} {{small|{{gray|''(Needs citations, not your memory.)''}}}}—] 00:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you, and please don't take my comment personally. I was encouraging you to bring citations, not discouraging you from using your memory. :-) ] (]) 01:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not at all, I was admiring what you did for Qualia too... and lo! it's you: {{diff|Positivism|501062862|501062278|06:40, 7 July 2012}} LOL... well 125, all I can say is, I hope you'll ].—] 01:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please respond to http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Positivism#The_death_of_nuance ] (]) 01:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> | |||
Latest revision as of 03:50, 31 August 2022
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.