User talk:Nyth83/Archives/2015/January

N-News Magazine link on N Series Tractor wiki page
I am new to doing editing on Wikipedia - I am more of a hands on guy that collects old tractors and I thought having some other sources of information besides tractor data was a good idea. I have been a subscriber to the N-News for years. It has been published for a long time and I thought it was a positive external link - at LEAST as good as tractor data AND - I don't think there are any external ads on the N-News website the way Tractordata has.

I did look at the guides for external link (though I will admit, AFTER I made the edit) but I don't see why you feel it is inappropriate to sight an external source of additional information on a subject that has a long history.

let me know

Thanks

tractornut1939 Tractornut1939 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Mirro history
FYI: I've reverted your most recent edit in the history section of the Mirro article. The information you brought into the article was a copy and paste of information from their website. This constitutes a copyright violation and can't be valid for the article. You can use the information there as a source, but you can't copy their exact wording. only (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your revised edits are also violation of copyright policies, particularly the idea of Close paraphrasing. We can't just reword slightly and count it as original writing based on the source.  only (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And related to Mirro, I have to remind you of edit warring as your reverts with the infobox on the article are edit warring at the moment. I'll provide an official template here so you can read through some of the policies: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Mirro Aluminum Company. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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. . only (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.