User talk:216.83.83.166

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Uma Thurman, is not consistent with our policy on attribution and verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Yamla 17:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sole

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Sole (foot), was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. 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. If you would like to alter the picture, please bring it up on the talk page. WLU 20:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning 2

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Sole (foot). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Bring it up on the sole talk page. WLU 00:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting contested edits without discussing it on the talk page (as I have done) is vandalism as far as I know. I have raised my objections, I can go into greater detail if you'd like, but until you discuss it with me on the talk page it looks like vandalism when you revert without discussing. Hence the tag. I can't assume good faith when you repeatedly revert and fail to dialogue. Bring it up on the talk page - if you fail to do so, but continue to revert, I will keep escalating the warnings until it gets to level 4, at which point I will report you on the administrators noticeboard and you may be blocked from editing. WLU 20:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It is pretty hard to assume good faith when you are not engaging in discussion on the talk pages. I will not remove the warnings from the IP address's talk page, but you are free to do so yourself - there is no prohibition against removing warnings. In the future, if you are running into conflict with another editor, the first step should be to bring it up on the appropriate talk page. There is a reply for you on the sole talk page. I still wish to remove the picture because I think it makes the page looks worse - if you wish, we could put in a request for comment to see what other editors think. WLU 16:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Reverting while failing to engage in discussion on talk pages can get you blocked for revert warring. What do you think of removing the picture now? The article's considerably shorter and the picture uglifies the page. If you disagree I'll take up a request for comment for outside input. WLU 13:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3O

I'm taking our disagreement on Sole to WP:3O so we don't just keep reverting. I still think the second picture is unnecessary and makes the page uglier. WLU 20:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

3O supported the removal of the picture. If you've got a problem with the page now, discuss it before reverting to a version that other editors disagree with. If you expanded the page, there would be more room for a second picture. Right now it looks like you are using wikipedia as a battleground, which it is not. WLU 19:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The whole purpose of 3O is to get an uninvolved editor to provide their opinion. That's why it's supposed to be phrased as neutrally as possible and the person posting the request doesn't provide their userid. It's not about arguments, we've both made our arguments and are unmoved by each other's. Hence the 3O. I've provided numerous reasons why I think the picture is inappropriate. Theres two in this section alone. WLU 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)