Ynfyny.8

October 2016

Hello, I'm Ronz. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you.

See also WP:COI in case it might apply. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Résumé. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines for talk pages

The overall guideline is WP:TALK.

New discussions should be at the bottom of article talk pages per WP:BOTTOMPOST. --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but I didn't look at it as a new topic... that's why I put it at the top. Sorry for being direct in my remarks, I don't intend anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynfyny.8 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. Sorry about being curt with you. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You're not the only one like that on Wikipedia and I understand why. You probably have a lot on your plate. However, that's the wrong approach in terms of dealing with people, in my view. That tends to alienate people who are thinking of contributing, but are put off right upfront. There's a lot of assumptions being made about why people want to contribute and, in my case, why a source is "spam" or "junk reference". It's actually quite frustrating to read these things since a lot of it is just opinion, but those stating these things say it like they are facts. This is just feedback for you to relay to whoever can institute change within Wikipedia. I value my time and when I spend time contributing to something over which I have expertise, I really don't appreciate some of the comments that have been made or things being changed without even asking me... And no, I did not just add a link, I also started to change some parts of the content for the better and was going to do more. Wikipedia should be a place open for discussion, but in my experience, it is not. People are cut off right off the bat. --Ynfyny.8