Khadija-NJITWILL
|
Plagiarism edit
While your addition was on topic, please take care not to plagiarize material, as you recently did on Environmental technology. --E8 (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
June 2010 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Environmental technology has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 06:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Environmental technology. 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. E8 (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#Khadija-NJITWILL reported by E8 (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "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.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 03:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Continued copyright violations edit
With these edits, you continue to add material at Environmental technology which is taken nearly word-for-word from the textbook by Vaccari, Strom and Alleman, 'Environmental Biology for Engineers and Scientists.' Occasionally you try to shorten the material you extract but when doing so you tend to introduce grammar mistakes or garble the original. The literal quote from Vaccari et al was:
These types of small media biofilm systems are typically operated in an up-flow operating regime, possibly with partial or full fluidization of the media during its operation on either a continuous or an intermittent basis and with intermittent backwashing being used (possibly with coaeration) to flush and extract entrapped solids.
In your version that becomes:
The small biofilm media systems are operated in an up-flow operating regime, possibly with partial and full fluidization of the media during its operation on either a continuous or an intermittent basis and the intermittent backwashing is use to flush the extract-entrapped solids.
Now, 'is use' is a grammar mistake and 'flush the extract-entrapped solids' garbles the original, and cannot be understood.
You must not continue to try editing the article on Environmental technology unless you are willing to follow WP:COPYVIO and discuss your changes with editors at Talk:Environmental technology. If you continue to edit this article without discussing, you may be blocked for a longer period. I have reverted the new edits which you added since 25 June because of the copyright violation. You should not restore that material. EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)