User talk:TurilCronburg

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Prime number. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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 be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, any suggestions for how to stop these folks from deleting basic info that is correct and useful? I followed all the suggestions, including adding explanations on the talk page and a reference?TurilCronburg (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having made your case on the article talk page, wait. If other editors are persuaded of the validity of your case, then the information will be included. If not, then persistently trying to force it in against consensus, or before consensus has been achieved, is disruptive behaviour which may get your editing restricted. Wikipedia:There is no deadline Deltahedron (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's more disruptive to remove correct and useful information (which is clearly important enough to be a common question on math websites). That harms everyone looking to learn about a subject. Why would anyone consistently try to force censorship of something so simple? Really, I don't get it. I don't care if my editing gets restricted by a website that thinks it's ok for people to remove other folks good contributions (as defined by how useful the contributions are to the average reader). If this kind of disrespectful behavior is what Wikipedia supports, then it's not worth participating, as a contributor or a reader, as far as I'm concerned. TurilCronburg (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I should add that this warlike, competitive approach to contributing to Wikipedia is the main reason why women stay away from it. I had wanted to offer workshops in editing Wikipedia for community members (of all ages) at the local library, but I think it would just be depressing and stressful for everyone if all their hard work researching and writing and illustrating topics that folks are most interested in gets deleted immediately, even when things are accurate, referenced, and useful to the average reader. TurilCronburg (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia written collaboratively. That means it has to have certain rules about the content (such as its being verifiable by independent reliable sources) and the behaviour of the writers. In particular, content is the subject of a group consensus. It is not a blog where everyone posts their own individual thoughts on each topic. Deltahedron (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's also a place where useful, interesting, and accurate information is supposed to be shared, so that people can explore the information of the world. When you get in the way of that, by attacking certain kinds of contributions, simply because you personally don't find facts and ideas important, then you're harming everyone. Consensus is about finding good solutions that work for everyone. Can you find a way to include this information that is clearly important and interesting to the average person (as evidenced by the many folks who ask about it on math forums and such) that seems reasonable for you as well? TurilCronburg (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use emotive language like "attacking". I am not saying that I personally have decided that the material should not be included, I'm saying that the case has not been made and so it's premature to insist on inserting it against the views of other editors. If you can persuade me, so much the better. The way to find out whether and if so how to include this material is by a reasoned discussion on the article talk page. Deltahedron (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Primes Mod 12.gif

The file File:Primes Mod 12.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]