User talk:Smommss

You may revert any corrections I contribute. to any article. However, I have learned that even when I have been published as a recognized scholar in a discipline or a field of study, it means nothing to writers, who take a far too proprietary interest in their pieces. Therefore I shall waste no more time correcting, debating, arguing or citing backups for such. Revert and I shall save my time and effort and allow wikipedia to continue with the reputation that it has acquired for slap-dash, half-baked, undocumented and unresearched articles, written by under-educated pseudo-intellectuals.

No point in writing something if you don't want a response. If you follow our policies at

WP:UNDUE, but you still need to be able to cite sources. I also notice you don't seem to take part in article talk page discussions, eg at Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies. You are much more likely to convince others if you actually discuss the issues with them at the appropriate article talk page. Throwing around insults isn't very impressive, by the way. Doug Weller talk 08:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Your recent editing history at Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smommss. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Smommss. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, we can't care about offending religious sensibilities and still be an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view. Thus we allow images of Muhammad (although we often tell editors how to avoid viewing them), we don't call Jesus "Christ" except where context requires it, we don't call Rama "Lord Rama" or refer to Muhammad as simply "the Prophet". Some Christians find BCE just as offensive. We've addressed this particular problem with a guideline requiring discussion on the talk page before changing the established era style. Please respect this. I have to even though I prefer BCE myself. And please sign with 4 tildes, ie ~~~~. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were "images broken". Compare [1] to your version [2] and [3] to your version [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added "and conflicts with it entirely." to a reference. That was not just inappropriate, it was

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]