User talk:Red Echidna: Difference between revisions
Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Joseph Stalin. (TW) |
Red Echidna (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
:[[User:FleetCommand|Fleet Command]] ([[User talk:FleetCommand|talk]]) 11:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC) |
:[[User:FleetCommand|Fleet Command]] ([[User talk:FleetCommand|talk]]) 11:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
== August 2015 == |
|||
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:Joseph Stalin]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|BRD]] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. |
|||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] 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.{{Break}}''You are at 4 reverts already.''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:WilliamThweatt|William Thweatt]] <sup>[[User talk:WilliamThweatt|Talk]]</sup><sup>[[Special:Contributions/WilliamThweatt|Contribs]]</sup> 05:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:57, 21 August 2015
A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Red Echidna. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! bodnotbod (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Article style
Hello, Red Echidna
Just wanted to drop a quick note about Wikipedia:Manual of Style: In Wikipedia, optional styles must be uniformly used throughout an article, meaning that, for instance, either all list sentences in a given article must have oxford comma or none should. Another more important point is stability: An editor should never convert between optional styles; e.g., one should not insert 50 oxford commas into an article that has no oxford commas or remove all oxford commas from an article. In fact, ArbCom does not tolerate such edits and regards them obsessive and disruptive.
Please stick to these two rules. Thanks in advance.
Fleet Command (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Let me tell a piece of interesting fact: All of those who convert between optional styles (I repeat, all) think that their change is out of necessity! And all those who oppose them also think about necessity! While there are people in this world that think the same as you explained, there are also people in this world that do not see the sentence the way you saw it. Instead when they read the sentence, they think "Symantec, Kaspersky, McAfee and who else?" because when they see comma, they expect at least two more items, not one. When they don't find it, they are briefly confused. Both groups are bound by their habits.
- Wikipedia Manual of Style however, acknowledges this issue and thinks both styles of writing deserve equal respect. Hence, the law that I explained to you has come into effect: Uniformity and stability.