User talk:SExposingtheJournalisto

Are you interested in cooperatively editing Psycho-Babble (virtual community)? If so, I am very willing to recognize your interests if you will discuss edits. Please refer to the talk page, and at least explain reasons for removing content.

Your latest edit, removing an account of the number of people who attended a get-together, removes content I find useful, but if for some reason an accurate account of the number of people in attendance is troubling to you, I can accept the edit in so far as the questioned sentence offers specific information that might not best inform a general representation of the site, and because information about the size and scope of the "virtual community" is otherwise summarized in the "usage" section. This is presuming your edit suggests a preference for general information as opposed to specific details about the group. ProveReader 21:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (SExposingthe's reply to ProveReader's User page):
 * (comments as posted by Sexposing include clips of my comments to same's talk page) Are you interested in cooperatively editing Psycho-Babble (virtual community)? If so, I am very willing to recognize your interests if you will discuss edits.


 * If so, then please explain why you choose to edit content today. I simily edited yours and you saw fit to edit what someone else posted today. I reposted that - you deleted.


 * I hope you cooperate with the editing and do not delete factual information.


 * Please refer to the talk page, and at least explain reasons for removing content.


 * I have extensively explained on the talk page almost every edit I have made to the Psycho-Babble (virtual community) page. The section I cited on to the talk page simply did not conjugate as a coherent sentence, regardless the inferred meaning. Beyond that, a previous post contained allegations of "Stalking" and speculation about the identity of various members of that forum does not comprise encyclopedic information. "Stalking" has a precise legal meaning that does not include invited participation in an open Internet forom. That people return to a group on Hsiung's frequent invitation to "try us again after your block" is not evidence of stalking. Otherwise the article already contains a sentence stating that Hsiung is considering implementation of fee-based registration to futher control access to his group. ProveReader 22:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 23:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -- Perfecto 23:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)