Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to 2011 has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
New editor (User:KoolerTheFirst) was using a script to make mass changes to year in aritcles different from previously agreed format involving "andash;".--Wik20150113 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
actually no you are wrong WP:Recent years clearly states and has thousands of editors see it and use it that "_" is not to be used but instead "andash;" as is obviously clear if you look at the template within the wp:recentyears page.--Wik20150113 (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) For what I can understand in your writing, you are wrong. The diff Neil gave you was not a KoolerTheFirst edit. More of these. Are you related to the IP who made these dssame edits before you, also without editsummary?-DePiep (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
dude the guy used a script thus are you calling me a robot to go back thru each and every of thousands of lines and revert back only the mistakes (of which there are at least a thousand) and pick out by hand for the next couple of days of my life to find all of his wrongful edits???--Wik20150113 (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i see now where it is that you cannot see the wrong of not using andash; you need to go into edit mode on the wp:recent years page and you will see that all the edits to the template are in andash; format. Thus, outside of edit mode the page for wp:recent years appears to be "_" as the reader would see it but instead we are editors thus the text underneath is in andash; and that is the format all editors for the past 4 years have used to edit dates within year in articles.--Wik20150113 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSDASH says that either the – code or the actual en-dash character are acceptable. Thus, I see no evidence that KoolerTheFirst was editing in bad faith. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wik20150113! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)
I see you're new here. Please take a look at WP:3RR. I've reverted your edit to 2014, as MilborneOne did. Footballers get their nationality from the team they are eligible to play for. However, I note that there were some non-footballers amongst the revert. You may restore these to British nationality if you wish and I won't hold 3RR against you for it. Mjroots (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the rules for the Year in article for obit give the name of the person and their nationality - the origin of their team is irrelevant and is not the modifier reason - it is the person NOT the team being modified--Wik20150113 (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at 2014 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.
You've now been reverted by three different editors. Please do not revert again or you are liable to be blocked from editing. Mjroots (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying you're the bad guy here. I'm saying stop edit warring and discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Preferably by naming each individual so that they can each be commented on separately. By right's, I could have blocked you already. You're luck that I'm not a "block first, ask questions later"-type of admin. That said, I can, and will, block any editor for the good of the project. Talk:2014 is thattaway! Mjroots (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i AM trying to defend the project - this is how we have done it for YEARS in the past - i will quote again from above "the rules for the Year in article for obit give the name of the person and their nationality - the origin of their team is irrelevant and is not the modifier reason - it is the person NOT the team being modified"--Wik20150113 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
