User talk:Fyllis

Please comment here. In addition, referring to good faith edits as vandalism is considered to be uncivil and is inappropriate.-- Terrillja talk  00:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There have been a number of vandalism edits from a few anonymous IP addresses over the course of the last few days. Generally what happens is, someone from an anonymous IP makes a vandalism-type edit, then some time later, another anonymous IP reverses it with an offhand comment. I do not know whether it's the same group of people or not. The last instance for this to happen was two days ago. And with the last anonymous edit, was a removal of content. What's the difference if it's sourced information or not? You don't just remove content without explanation. You have an issue with the content, so insert a citation tag. It's not necessary to remove it outright. Fyllis (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:V is a core principle of Wikipedia. So unsourced, unconnected information should be removed. Per WP:BRD, I opened a discussion on the talkpage of the article, it was you who chose to ignore that. -- Terrillja talk  00:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''You are at 3 reverts in an hour or two. A discussion has been opened on the talkpage of the article, yet you have chosen to ignore that discussion as well as a warning on your talkpage. If you continue to edit war, you may find yourself blocked.'' Terrillja  talk  00:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama and alt captions
This is the text that you attempted to insert today;

"A middle aged African American male standing and smiling. He is a wearing a naval blue suit and a light blue tie with white dots. The male is standing with his hands folded, in front of a desk and two flagpoles."

Now look at ALT where an example caption under Queen Elizabeth II of what not to do is;

"Unless it appears in an article on fashion, the alt text should not be "an elderly woman wearing a black hat"."

See the similarity? You were wrong today, wrong on March 19th, and wrong on March 20th. Please stop being wrong. Tarc (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)