User talk:Tilapidated

Welcome!

Hello, Tilapidated, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! I am One of Many (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tilapidated, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Tilapidated! 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! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Water fluoridation

Please slow down and discuss on the talk page before making edits to the article. It is a featured article. The changes you are making don't have consensus and the additional text you are adding isn't sourced. Can you wait a while to see what other responses appear on the talk page before making more changes to the article. There is no rush. Thank you. Colin°^Talk 21:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, it is late where I am so I'm off to bed now. Colin°^Talk 21:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Please see my reply at the noticeboard. I've closed it with a warning for now, but please do not continue to revert or you may be blocked. Let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tilapidated. You have new messages at Zad68's talk page.
Message added 02:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Zad68 02:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...

Hey Tilapidated, I see you're running into friction at Talk:water fluoridation. You seem like a pretty sharp editor, and so I'm going to do something really terrible and try to give unasked-for advice , one thing that really helped me in trying to work on contentious articles. Here it is: "never say you". Regarding comments like "you think this article should only relate to artificial water fluoridation", "you would want to limit the definition", "which reviews are you most impressed by", "you don't want to allow the community the term", "you bring a strong point of view" - Read WP:AVOIDYOU, it's really helpful. Avoid guessing at other editors' motivations, it never helps, it only ends up personalizing content discussions. It should never be about "what I want vs. what you want" because that frames it as a personal battle that will end up with a winner and a loser. It should only ever be about "What would make for the best article?" Hope this was helpful. Let me know if not and I'll never bother you with it again. Happy editing! Zad68 04:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Febuary 2013

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tilapidated, you're meeting friction with your edits to water fluoridation. This is a featured article. It is also a medical/health subject. Our first priority is to maintain its high quality state. It is not a priority to make changes quickly. We can take our time over that. I strongly advise you to stop directly editing water fluoridation. Make suggestions on the talk page. Gain consensus for those changes. Then you or anyone else can apply those changes once it is clear there is consensus for them. This will result in much less conflict and cooler heads, giving you time to learn a thing or two about the need to source all the text you add with citations and to read more of the existing text/citations so you get a better balance of what is already there. If you continue to make unwelcome edits that get reverted, then it will end in tears for you I'm afraid. What may appear to you to be a straightforward error in the article text, may not in fact be so, or may not be nearly has problematic as you think it is. Slow right down. Edit some other articles on completely different topics to take your mind off it, for example. Once a single issue in a single article becomes your entire focus on Wikipedia, it is not healthy. -- Colin°^Talk 14:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You must get consensus for a proposed change on the talk page. You have had half a dozen long term editors revert you edits recently. I have protected the page in question so that discussion can take place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tilapidated, please be clear that I want the article to improve and that requires changes. Particularly if more recent reviews and reports indicate the text is now out of date. I don't have any personal stake in the article text nor any strong belief about WF (e.g., it isn't available where I live). But I do respect the FA that is presently there and see no reason to rush to make changes particularly when they aren't respecting recent sources compared to old ones or when they misinterpret sources because folk haven't actually read them. Slow down. Colin°^Talk 17:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key is to develop consensus on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

I would also recommend that you comment only on content. This comment is not appropriate [1]. Further comments of this nature and you will lose your editing privileges. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact reading a number of your statements it might be a good idea to cross out a number of your comments. On Wikipedia we do not comment on our fellow editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]