User talk:Fares Fair

Welcome!
Hello, Fares Fair, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! - Shiftchange (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Nambour and Gympie North railway line
Why are you adding detailed information about what various politicians have said about an upgrade? In the long run it doesn't really that Mr Newman's team replied on 8 February 2012 with some statement. This is an encyclopedia. It isn't a community rally point or place where you can advocate for better train services. The campaign section doesn't really belong. It will probably be removed so don't waste your time. If you intend to reply please use this page. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. Per the above, there's an apparent consensus of editors that your section on the Nambour/Gympie North rail campaign not be included in the article on the line, or perhaps be included in a shortened form. This appears to be because the section has problems with notability, original research and its tone. I note you immediately restored the section - this doesn't work as an editing approach because it leads to edit wars with others, and to either editors being blocked from contributing or the page being protected against further edits.


 * You are clearly well informed on the details of the campaign to duplicate the additional section of line - can I suggest you add some comments at Talk:Nambour and Gympie North railway line and see if a middle ground can be reached between inclusion of the entire section or its entire removal? I imagine there is more that can be salvaged than the current single line, so maybe a middle ground can be reached. Euryalus (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Im not sure if this is the way to respond, Replying to messages is so unclear here. I am happy for editors to edit my work to comply with your standards. All of it is referenced and factual. Thank you. Fares Fair (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Rail Upgrade Campaign History
Is not what Wikipedia is WP:ABOUT - Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a WP:SOAPBOX - please take warnings seriously, you will find the material deleted, and if you dont understand WP:AGF, and a few other key wikipedia principal policies, it may be a case of ignoring the warnings at your own peril. sats 10:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. sats 16:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure if this is the way to respond, Replying to messages is so unclear here. I am happy for editors to edit my work to comply with your standards. All of it is referenced and factual. Thank you. Fares Fair (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no defined way to reply although its best to keep discussion about an article on that articles talk page. We appreciate the references you have provided, however the aspects and details you provided aren't considered important to include in an encyclopedia article about a railway line.  Could I suggest you read WP:UNDUE. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)