| Revision as of 09:28, 29 September 2013 editFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:32, 29 September 2013 edit undoFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| Hello, Cecildeed. I've seen a few of your edits earlier this year, and the edits I saw of yours during that time were not what I would categorize as good. So it is not surprising to me that these two edits I am about to mention are in the same "not good" vein: and . Those are just two examples of your inappropriate edits. I and many others at this site have zero tolerance for that type of thing (deceptive edit summaries), especially from a Misplaced Pages editor who has been at this site for as long as you have and should have learned ] by now. Your edit at the ] article today by ] because it was ], and I at the ] article because your edit removed a core piece of text that is supported by the ] attributed to it. If I see you continue to make edits like that, which are clearly deceptive by the nature of their edit summaries, I will report you at ] (WP:ANI). Also understand that WP:Edit warring, something that you clearly continue to partake in at ] article (your latest edit there seen ) is against policy and you can be ] from editing Misplaced Pages for that. You should read the ] (WP:BRD) essay for what are usually the appropriate means to take when you are reverted. I see your lack of regard for whatever rules Misplaced Pages may have with But know this: If you do not follow the rules of this site, it will eventually lead to your being blocked from editing it. ] matter, as I'm sure you know, has been extensively debated; ] shows that. Therefore, considering that the edits you keep making at The Matrix article are a part of an unresolved dispute among editors, it is inappropriate (by Misplaced Pages standards) for you to continue to reinsert such edits. If ] is against you on such edits, then it is very inappropriate (by Misplaced Pages standards) for you to continue making such edits. WP:Consensus is a policy, and it usually should not knowingly be violated (no matter the cause). | Hello, Cecildeed. I've seen a few of your edits earlier this year, and the edits I saw of yours during that time were not what I would categorize as good. So it is not surprising to me that these two edits I am about to mention are in the same "not good" vein: and . Those are just two examples of your inappropriate edits. I and many others at this site have zero tolerance for that type of thing (deceptive edit summaries), especially from a Misplaced Pages editor who has been at this site for as long as you have and should have learned ] by now. Your edit at the ] article today by ] because it was ], and I at the ] article because your edit removed a core piece of text that is supported by the ] attributed to it. If I see you continue to make edits like that, which are clearly deceptive by the nature of their edit summaries, I will report you at ] (WP:ANI). Also understand that WP:Edit warring, something that you clearly continue to partake in at ] article (your latest edit there seen ) is against policy and you can be ] from editing Misplaced Pages for that. You should read the ] (WP:BRD) essay for what are usually the appropriate means to take when you are reverted. I see your lack of regard for whatever rules Misplaced Pages may have with But know this: If you do not follow the rules of this site, it will eventually lead to your being blocked from editing it. ] matter, as I'm sure you know, has been extensively debated; ] shows that. Therefore, considering that the edits you keep making at The Matrix article are a part of an unresolved dispute among editors, it is inappropriate (by Misplaced Pages standards) for you to continue to reinsert such edits. If ] is against you on such edits, then it is very inappropriate (by Misplaced Pages standards) for you to continue making such edits. WP:Consensus is a policy, and it usually should not knowingly be violated (no matter the cause). | ||
| Something I meant to state to you before: was not an improvement to me, considering that the term ''lesbian'' often and validly refers to female same-sex romance and/or female same-sex sexual activity in general, as is evidenced by dictionaries, encyclopedias, marketing, the media and the lesbian community. But at least your edit summary there was descriptive and not deceptive. ] (]) 08:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC) | Something I meant to state to you before: was not an improvement to me, considering that the term ''lesbian'' often and validly refers to female same-sex romance and/or female same-sex sexual activity in general, as is evidenced by dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholarly texts, marketing, the media and the lesbian community. But at least your edit summary there was descriptive and not deceptive. ] (]) 08:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:32, 29 September 2013
November 2010
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Stephanie Leonidas, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot NG.
- Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Misplaced Pages articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
- ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Stephanie Leonidas was changed by Cecildeed (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.803506 on 2010-11-19T09:40:30+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Deceptive WP:Edit summaries, and WP:Edit warring
Hello, Cecildeed. I've seen a few of your edits earlier this year, and the edits I saw of yours during that time were not what I would categorize as good. So it is not surprising to me that these two edits I am about to mention are in the same "not good" vein: This and this. Those are just two examples of your inappropriate edits. I and many others at this site have zero tolerance for that type of thing (deceptive edit summaries), especially from a Misplaced Pages editor who has been at this site for as long as you have and should have learned Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines by now. Your edit at the Emily Fitch article was removed today by Grayfell because it was WP:Unsourced, and I reverted you at the Clitoris article because your edit removed a core piece of text that is supported by the WP:Reliable sources attributed to it. If I see you continue to make edits like that, which are clearly deceptive by the nature of their edit summaries, I will report you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). Also understand that WP:Edit warring, something that you clearly continue to partake in at The Matrix article (your latest edit there seen here) is against policy and you can be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for that. You should read the Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD) essay for what are usually the appropriate means to take when you are reverted. I see your lack of regard for whatever rules Misplaced Pages may have with this statement. But know this: If you do not follow the rules of this site, it will eventually lead to your being blocked from editing it. The Wachowskis matter, as I'm sure you know, has been extensively debated; this link shows that. Therefore, considering that the edits you keep making at The Matrix article are a part of an unresolved dispute among editors, it is inappropriate (by Misplaced Pages standards) for you to continue to reinsert such edits. If WP:Consensus is against you on such edits, then it is very inappropriate (by Misplaced Pages standards) for you to continue making such edits. WP:Consensus is a policy, and it usually should not knowingly be violated (no matter the cause).
Something I meant to state to you before: This edit was not an improvement to me, considering that the term lesbian often and validly refers to female same-sex romance and/or female same-sex sexual activity in general, as is evidenced by dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholarly texts, marketing, the media and the lesbian community. But at least your edit summary there was descriptive and not deceptive. Flyer22 (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)