Your recent editing history at Enrico Fermi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 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. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Vikom for your corrections! I can also answer in the language of my ancestors: Ars longa, vita brevis! :-). Bye, Alex2006 ( talk) 16:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
use free everything
Khorn Veasna ( talk) 23:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Vikom! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
I couldn't agree more with this edit, in which you replaced "prior to" with "before". Goodness knows why so many people seem to think that using pointless Latinisms instead of plain English somehow makes their writing better. However, you may like to think again before using such an edit summary. Even editors who write such pompous English mostly do so in good faith, and they deserve civility. (I confess that I sometimes slip into doing the same kind of thing myself, but I try not to, and I am just suggesting that you too may try not to, not condemning you for doing it.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Judging by your own talk page, I wonder whether it could it be that you're obsessing with WP:ENGVAR in the wrong context for Wikipedia a little too much. Editor's personal user pages, talk page, and even article space talk pages are inappropriate pages to hand down what I now suspect to be 'criticisms' of other editor's abilities to edit actual article spaces. Editors don't even have to revisit and change their own typos as it's a waste of time. At any rate, please read my response. I'm more than happy to discuss such issues further if it is constructive. Cheers! Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Vikom,
I've undone several of your recent edits again after I took a quick look when you popped up on my watchlist. I don't think it's appropriate for you to be making these sorts of changes. Many of them are marked with something like "ce" when it's in fact simply your substitution of a preferred word or phrase. Generally, these substitutions are neither valid nor necessary. Even the one I left alone (changing "apply in" to "apply to") was pretty much a 50/50 change; either would have been perfectly fine there. An earlier batch I went through contained many changes that were simply just wrong (the ones about "off of"). I also noticed you left a comment on Iryna Harpy's talk page where you said: "I want to make English a bit more logical, and Wikipedia seems to be a very good tool."
. This is
not what Wikipedia is for.
Wikipedia is not a means for you to promote your own ideas of how English should be written. Nor is it a vehicle for
righting great wrongs. If you're really interested in improving the English on Wikipedia, there are tons and tons of articles that are utterly riddled with very poor English. Cleaning those up is a way to improve Wikipedia, not tweaking word choices based on what you perceive to be "plain English".
This may seem a bit harsh, but I hope you'll take this in the constructive manner in which it was intended, even if it didn't quite come across like that. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 02:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Enrico Fermi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 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. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Vikom for your corrections! I can also answer in the language of my ancestors: Ars longa, vita brevis! :-). Bye, Alex2006 ( talk) 16:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
use free everything
Khorn Veasna ( talk) 23:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Vikom! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
I couldn't agree more with this edit, in which you replaced "prior to" with "before". Goodness knows why so many people seem to think that using pointless Latinisms instead of plain English somehow makes their writing better. However, you may like to think again before using such an edit summary. Even editors who write such pompous English mostly do so in good faith, and they deserve civility. (I confess that I sometimes slip into doing the same kind of thing myself, but I try not to, and I am just suggesting that you too may try not to, not condemning you for doing it.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Judging by your own talk page, I wonder whether it could it be that you're obsessing with WP:ENGVAR in the wrong context for Wikipedia a little too much. Editor's personal user pages, talk page, and even article space talk pages are inappropriate pages to hand down what I now suspect to be 'criticisms' of other editor's abilities to edit actual article spaces. Editors don't even have to revisit and change their own typos as it's a waste of time. At any rate, please read my response. I'm more than happy to discuss such issues further if it is constructive. Cheers! Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Vikom,
I've undone several of your recent edits again after I took a quick look when you popped up on my watchlist. I don't think it's appropriate for you to be making these sorts of changes. Many of them are marked with something like "ce" when it's in fact simply your substitution of a preferred word or phrase. Generally, these substitutions are neither valid nor necessary. Even the one I left alone (changing "apply in" to "apply to") was pretty much a 50/50 change; either would have been perfectly fine there. An earlier batch I went through contained many changes that were simply just wrong (the ones about "off of"). I also noticed you left a comment on Iryna Harpy's talk page where you said: "I want to make English a bit more logical, and Wikipedia seems to be a very good tool."
. This is
not what Wikipedia is for.
Wikipedia is not a means for you to promote your own ideas of how English should be written. Nor is it a vehicle for
righting great wrongs. If you're really interested in improving the English on Wikipedia, there are tons and tons of articles that are utterly riddled with very poor English. Cleaning those up is a way to improve Wikipedia, not tweaking word choices based on what you perceive to be "plain English".
This may seem a bit harsh, but I hope you'll take this in the constructive manner in which it was intended, even if it didn't quite come across like that. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 02:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)