| Revision as of 23:42, 3 April 2006 editRealek (talk | contribs)630 edits →Stop falsely claiming minor edits← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:52, 3 April 2006 edit undoHectorian (talk | contribs)9,081 edits →The link you providedNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| There's nothing wrong with the link. Howerver it doesnt proove what you say. That's why i told you a few times already to read the discussion and the archives. I know it's a lot, but if you don't want to do it, you shouldnt persistantly change things that were agreed. Everybody here is aware of the naming dispute and the article reflects that. A compromise was reached back while (unfortunately it's not fully respected) that the naming issue should be adressed in a separate text and a link should be provided. Don't be sensationalistic about the link. Everybody here is pretty aware of the facts. The link will surprise nobody. But it's not a "proof" for changing the article. Regards --] 22:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC) | There's nothing wrong with the link. Howerver it doesnt proove what you say. That's why i told you a few times already to read the discussion and the archives. I know it's a lot, but if you don't want to do it, you shouldnt persistantly change things that were agreed. Everybody here is aware of the naming dispute and the article reflects that. A compromise was reached back while (unfortunately it's not fully respected) that the naming issue should be adressed in a separate text and a link should be provided. Don't be sensationalistic about the link. Everybody here is pretty aware of the facts. The link will surprise nobody. But it's not a "proof" for changing the article. Regards --] 22:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I wonder who does not respect the compromise,Realek...When did u say it was reached?a while ago?no...u are wrong. we are '''working''' for a compromise, but it seems that u have nothing to say about NikoSilver's edits in the talk page...I guess cause he has provided all the information and citations needed and u cannot support your claims...Be my guest and prove that i am wrong, if u can! --] 23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:52, 3 April 2006
Welcome!
Hello, LionKing, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Khoikhoi 18:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome
But keep in mind that here at Misplaced Pages, we have a Neutral point of view policy - this means including every point of view no matter how ridiculous you peceive them to be. I can show you some examples of neutral articles if you want - in the meantime, happy editing. ;) --Khoikhoi 18:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Stop falsely claiming minor edits
Read the rules about what minor edit is. Falsely claiming minor edit is a breach of Misplaced Pages rules and it has concequences. --Realek 19:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You did it again! Please stop doing it. It's transparent anyway - you're just trying to avoid the 3RR rule (wich leads to the conclusion that yor're not a new user, like you want us to belive). Furthermore, the reasons you give for the changes you make are totaly unrelated. Please read the discussion page and the archives. --Realek 20:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok - I must admit I'm suspicious that you're not really a new user. But I might be wrong and if I am I apologise. In that case welcome to wikipedia. Here is some stuff that might help:
- You should not claim a minor if its not. It really looks like an attempt to avoid 3RR.
- 3RR is a wikipedia rule that you can only edit 3 times in any 24 hour interval - to limit edit warring
- Don't revert with edit summaries like "it's better this way" (like you did for the Ilinden uprising article). You should give good reasons especially for disputed articles
- Don't revert with edit summaries that are unrelated to the changes you make (like you did on Republic of Macedonia article). Take time and read the discussion and the archives about the specific point you make.
Regards --Realek 20:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- To Realek and LionKing. The 3RR states that you should not revert, it is not concertned with editing the way Realek claims. Everyone is free to give summaries and judge their value, or even not give any summaries at all. All the edits are checked nonetheless. FunkyFly 20:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Why is it called the 3RR then (three revert rule) ??? --Realek 23:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Some Advice
Be careful when u say that it is a minor edit. also, take a look at the 3RR, so as not to find yourself into trouble. keep contributing! --Hectorian 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't understand, what's wrong with ticking the "minor edit" box? I'm not making big changes. Where is this policy? --LionKing 20:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- When u are making a revert concerning something that other users dispute and u tick the 'minor edit' box, it's like misleading that your edit was not important. i am not aware of a policy about 'minor edits'. if i were, i would had given u a link:).just be a little bit more careful when ticking the box. --Hectorian 20:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The link you provided
There's nothing wrong with the link. Howerver it doesnt proove what you say. That's why i told you a few times already to read the discussion and the archives. I know it's a lot, but if you don't want to do it, you shouldnt persistantly change things that were agreed. Everybody here is aware of the naming dispute and the article reflects that. A compromise was reached back while (unfortunately it's not fully respected) that the naming issue should be adressed in a separate text and a link should be provided. Don't be sensationalistic about the link. Everybody here is pretty aware of the facts. The link will surprise nobody. But it's not a "proof" for changing the article. Regards --Realek 22:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- I wonder who does not respect the compromise,Realek...When did u say it was reached?a while ago?no...u are wrong. we are working for a compromise, but it seems that u have nothing to say about NikoSilver's edits in the talk page...I guess cause he has provided all the information and citations needed and u cannot support your claims...Be my guest and prove that i am wrong, if u can! --Hectorian 23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)