Hi,
Can you explain why you have rolled back numerous edits by me and marked it as 'VANDAL'?
I have faith in the accurateness of my edits, but please tell me why you consider my edits as vandalism, in the premise of allowing me to improve the quality of my contributions.
Cheers, Z10987 ( talk) 01:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- One more thing. Can you explain why you have moved the page 'Chinese Reunification' to 'Cross-Strait Unification'? I find that the former would be the more commonly used term and more logical in this case. What do you think? Thanks, Z10987 ( talk) 03:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to
Template:History of China does not have an
edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.
The edit summary appears in:
- User contributions
- Recent changes
- Watchlists
- Revision differences
- IRC channels
- Related changes
- New pages list and
- Article editing history
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! -- benlisquare T• C• E 11:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do not blindly revert if you personally disagree with something. This constitutes edit warring and disruptive editing. Wikipedia works on consensus-building - you must discuss any controversial changes with the community on the talk page. Furthermore, you must use edit summaries to explain your edits. Per WP:BRD, cease reverting and engage in proper discussion. Since you intend to change the status quo, you have the burden of explaining and justifying your changes. -- benlisquare T• C• E 11:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Have a read at WP:BRD. You have the burden of gaining community consensus, not me. You are the one changing the status quo. If you have disagreements, start a discussion at WP:WikiProject Taiwan and get more users involved. Do not revert again. -- benlisquare T• C• E 11:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Template:History of China shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. -- benlisquare T• C• E 11:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that there is discussion that involves you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- benlisquare T• C• E 11:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and may need to be
reverted or removed.
- You appear to be engaged in an article content dispute with other editors, including editor User:ViPremierce whom you appear to be Wikihounding. Please discuss the matter with the editors at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you continue with this behaviour you may be blocked.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Prhartcom ( talk) 13:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Template:Military of the Republic of China shows that you are currently engaged in an 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 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 your 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. - BilCat ( talk) 04:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Those accounts I reverted are sockpuppets of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Eeeeeewtw.-- Uaat ( talk) 05:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- I still see no reason to use a piped name as long as the article includes ROC in the title. Get it moved first. - BilCat ( talk) 05:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Can you explain why you have rolled back numerous edits by me and marked it as 'VANDAL'?
I have faith in the accurateness of my edits, but please tell me why you consider my edits as vandalism, in the premise of allowing me to improve the quality of my contributions.
Cheers, Z10987 ( talk) 01:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- One more thing. Can you explain why you have moved the page 'Chinese Reunification' to 'Cross-Strait Unification'? I find that the former would be the more commonly used term and more logical in this case. What do you think? Thanks, Z10987 ( talk) 03:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to
Template:History of China does not have an
edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.
The edit summary appears in:
- User contributions
- Recent changes
- Watchlists
- Revision differences
- IRC channels
- Related changes
- New pages list and
- Article editing history
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! -- benlisquare T• C• E 11:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do not blindly revert if you personally disagree with something. This constitutes edit warring and disruptive editing. Wikipedia works on consensus-building - you must discuss any controversial changes with the community on the talk page. Furthermore, you must use edit summaries to explain your edits. Per WP:BRD, cease reverting and engage in proper discussion. Since you intend to change the status quo, you have the burden of explaining and justifying your changes. -- benlisquare T• C• E 11:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Have a read at WP:BRD. You have the burden of gaining community consensus, not me. You are the one changing the status quo. If you have disagreements, start a discussion at WP:WikiProject Taiwan and get more users involved. Do not revert again. -- benlisquare T• C• E 11:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Template:History of China shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. -- benlisquare T• C• E 11:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Note that there is discussion that involves you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- benlisquare T• C• E 11:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and may need to be
reverted or removed.
- You appear to be engaged in an article content dispute with other editors, including editor User:ViPremierce whom you appear to be Wikihounding. Please discuss the matter with the editors at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you continue with this behaviour you may be blocked.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Prhartcom ( talk) 13:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Template:Military of the Republic of China shows that you are currently engaged in an 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 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 your 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. - BilCat ( talk) 04:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Those accounts I reverted are sockpuppets of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Eeeeeewtw.-- Uaat ( talk) 05:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- I still see no reason to use a piped name as long as the article includes ROC in the title. Get it moved first. - BilCat ( talk) 05:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)