User talk:Jowillis

July 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to BBC Big Screen, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Your edits are replacing good introductory text with something that is less well expressed, and you are adding lots of personal judgment and promotional-sounding material (eg "the square is home to a number of bars and restaurants with outdoor seating, perfect for a Summer's evening when the Royal Opera House is being relayed live to the Big Screen." and "Big Screen Liverpool has prided itself on it's creativity...", and "it's fitting that the Big Screen is located in Festival Square. "), both of which are prohibited by Wikipedia policies. Please feel free to add factual and referenced material, but if you keep re-writing the article to sound like an advertisement, it is likely to keep being reverted.'' Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Will you please stop doing this - your new version reads like an advertising brochure, and your new opening explanation of the concept is of lower quality than the original. Please discuss this on the Talk page if you disagree, or we can ask for a third party to offer their opinions if you like? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my Talk page. I did indeed read your new version, and I have to say I thought it still read more like an advertising brochure than an encyclopedia entry. However, I do think you added some important new information and I'd like to help. So here's what I suggest - have another go, rewording any parts that sounds like promotional text, and don't remove the opening text that explains what the concept actually is. And I won't revert it again - instead I'll come back later and try to do some copy-editing for you (though it won't be for a little while - maybe not until tomorrow). How does that sound? Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I will take a look at this again. I will have to reword the introduction though as as it stands it's incorrect and doesn't reflect the project anymore. It's moved on since that was written. As I say though I will have another go and would appreciate any copy-editing you can do to improve it. Many thanks Jowillis (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough - I'll have a look at it as soon as I have a bit of time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on BBC Big Screen. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi FQ. I actually suggested Jowillis should revert and try again, so it's my fault really - see above discussion. I've offered to help with copy-editing (which I should really have offered earlier rather than my last revert). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay- sorry for the mixed message. Carry on, then. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)