User talk:Westvoja
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Dinosaurs
Hi Westvoja: I'm sorry to keep reverting your updates to Bird, but you really need to explain your reasoning to the other editors. I know it's frustrating when you feel strongly about something and other editors keep reverting it, but it's important—particularly in an FA-class article—to make sure potentially controversial information (and this is controversial, as the endless reverts show) is properly referenced. Right now, you're making multiple revisions per day, but putting in no edit summaries to explain your reasoning. You've declined to respond to polite requests for comment from several editors, and have chosen not to engage in any talk page discussions about the changes. It's putting all of us in a very awkward situation; we're all trying to improve the article, but butting heads! :/ It's evident from what you wrote on my talk page that you don't think the current lead is clear enough in its indication that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Do you have references that show that scientists think that birds are dinosaurs, rather than just being related to dinosaurs? If so, post those reference links on the article's talk page so we can tie them into the article! Please feel free to contact me again. MeegsC | Talk 13:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again. OK, I've looked at a couple of the articles you've pointed me to. Unfortunately, though some of them have references listed at the bottom, none of them has an in-line citation for that "controversial" statement about birds actually being dinosaurs instead of merely being related to them. Any chance you have a reference at your end that we could include? Do you know of a particular published article/book that can be accessed on-line, for example, or at a library? I think other editors would be far more likely to accept this edit if they could see that there is scientific support for it—and surely there must be somewhere if you've read about it! MeegsC | Talk 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Warning
Looking through your contributions, I note the repeated insertion of contentious material into the Bird article, despite a clear consensus that it is inappropriate. This does not appear to be in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia, and if necessary I will take steps to prevent further similar edits by you. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Note
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bird. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You've actually now reverted it 4 times
[edit] March 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Bird has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. ScarianCall me Pat 23:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi.note that you can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. From the entries above, and the tone of your response to me, it is clear that you have decided to ignore warnings and take the consequences. However, please note that future blocks may be for more extended periods. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Gentle suggestion
From your spelling style and articles edited I get the impression that you have a lot of scholarship ahead. As someone who started with an interest in biology, evolution and related subjects early, I know that there are fields of knowledge and ideas that take time to fit in properly. Understanding the nuances of evolution, cladistics, phylogenetics, speciation and taxonomy takes a lot of time and a lot of reading. I hope you will not take any of above the blocks personally and spend your energy fighting against it. It would help instead to read more detailed works in due time and not get carried away by just a few statements that one may hear on a documentary on a science channel. Wishing you well. Shyamal (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "All birds are dinosaurs"
This is not a good faith edit, don't forget you can be blocked again, Jimfbleak (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your Attempt To Block Me
Dear Westvoja,
I realize that you must be frustrated by the repeated removals of your "non-avian dinosaur" viewpoint. However, if you want this information to be recognized and placed in an article, you must do a couple of things. The first thing would be to bring your argument to a talk page. My advice would be the WP:Birds Talk Page with a friendly note left on the WP:DINO talk page, though you may wish to switch it. Once there, outline your argument as eloquently and persuasively as you can and include a number of refs. Once that is up, you will have to defend your view until you can convince the consensus to change to support your view. Then, and only then, can your information be included in the articles. Do I think that you can change consensus? No, but it shouldn't stop you from trying.
One thing that can stop you from trying is if you are pernamently blocked. You are on the path to being pernamently blocked, as your continue to edit war against consensus and attempt to block other users. Perhaps you didn't realize this, but since you are not an administrator, you are unable to block me. Sorry.
I hope you take my advice, because I believe you are on the brink of being pernamently blocked (which, BTW, I can't do either)
Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just to make it absolutely clear, next time you modify the lead against the consensus, I will block you again, for longer. 06:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
