User talk:71.139.0.12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your editting on Democratic-Republican was clear and concise. Thanks and feel free to stop back by and help make the case. Skyemoor 23:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CagedRage 23:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Given your refusal to acknowledge other editors' comments, deleting comments from your talk page, and your anonymous IP, your reversions are clearly in bad faith. You are also dangerously close to violating the three revert rule.

Contents

[edit] Democrat Party (phrase)

Again, please stop reverting to older versions without a valid reason. Just saying that someone's edits are "not up to standards" isn't helpful for all of us who want to improve the article: it doesn't give us anything from which to work; we don't know what you mean! Instead, use the talk page to discuss specifically what elements you want to change, with precise reasons: say that X is less clear than Y, or that X violates one of Wikipedia's policies, etc., etc. That way, we can all come to an agreement on the best way to treat the subject, instead of everyone trying to change the page back to their preferred version. Thanks -- 17:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

AGAIN, you need to make a case for your changes on the talk page. Saying that someone's edits were "terrible" is not a reason for reverting them. You need a good reason to remove somebody's work. You are being rather inconsiderate of the other editors here, and you are also on the edge of violating the three revert rule. Dylan 23:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of reverting the page again, I've decided to try to rewrite certain elements so that we can all agree on a version. Please let me know what you think. Dylan 00:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're asking if we have rules that state that if a person doesn't write particularly well, their edits should be reverted, then no. If there are typos or awkward phrases, the best thing to do is to fix them instead of just reverting them wholesale -- just because a person's writing might be poor, doesn't mean that the information they're trying to communicate is unworthy of inclusion. I appreciate your recent measures to make a better indication of your motives for edits; some of them (i.e. your assertion that "has been suggested" was a weasel phrase) were slightly misguided with respect to Wikipedia policy, so I cleaned up around the edges and restored certain elements. But I just want to say that I'm happy you're starting to edit in a more cooperative manner. Dylan 14:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not blank your talk page.

Please do not remove any legitimate vandalism notices from your user talk page. Your user talk page does not belong to you, it belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation. (see WP:TALK) If you blank and/or vandalise this page in the future, you could be blocked from editing without prior notice. SonicChao 23:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, Miss Thing!

[edit] Grammaticality

Try looking in a dictionary:

Dylan 17:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dakota 04:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Democrat Party (phrase)

Your recent edit to Democrat Party (phrase) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 18:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/1/2E/User_talk%7E71.139.0.12.html"