This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Verbal (talk | contribs) at 10:53, 5 September 2009 (Warning: Potentially violating the three revert rule on Optics. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:53, 5 September 2009 by Verbal (talk | contribs) (Warning: Potentially violating the three revert rule on Optics. (TW))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
Hello, OpticsPhysics, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Srleffler (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Optics edits
Hi!
Most of your edits at Optics introduced grammatical and factual errors into the text. This diff clearly shows a number of problems including subject-verb disagreements, lack of proper punctuation, and an inappropriate claim that all of optics can be accounted for by classical electromagnetism. This is why I reverted to the previous version. Please workshop your proposal and vet it for errors before simply reverting. Thanks!
ScienceApologist (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
September 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Optics. 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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please self revert and seek WP:CONSENSUS. I see no WP:RS or justification of your position on talk, just a rant. Verbal chat 10:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)