User talk:Serrata
Please stop making the same edit to this article. The edits are not encyclopedic. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your help on the page, but that's not the proper way to format references. Feel free to discuss on the article's talk page. Thanks again for the help.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Solomon Islands skink. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Now I finally understand what you were trying to do. Feel free to discuss anything on the article's talkpage or my talkpage. I was hesitant to use that source as it is unpublished, although extremely well written and fascinating, and don't want that to keep the article from making Featured status. The refs have to be sufficient and formatted properly to move it up the line. I might have to get a second ref as backup on those, please don't delete Kohler, though...it is an anchor ref linking to other refs and it disrupts the page when you do that.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Brian, please stop adding trivia to the article and stop deleting references. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. You might want to publish your Original Research on wikibooks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- I see you've re-added the sentence about Solomon Islands skinks urinating red after eating Pothos. You need to provide a ref that complies with WP:RS for this, as in general lizards don't urinate - the chemistry of their excretory systems is different front hat of mammals. Otherwise the sentence will just be removed again, and if you add it again without a WP:RS you'd risk being accused of WP:DE - not soethig any of us wants to see happen. If you've seen something that convinces you but doesn't meet the criteria of WP:RS, raise it on the Talk page - that will probably stir someone's curiosity and they might search for a ref. -- Philcha (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring over this issue - you are in violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule, and may be blocked from editing if you continue.
If you feel the other involved editor has missed your point, or is using flawed sources, please discuss this on the article's talk page so that other editors can help you reach a useful consensus. --McGeddon (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please discuss this on the talk page before adding it again - Mike Searson has already started the discussion. Inserting an unclear "(over the past 20 years)" into your edit does not do a very good job of explaining what your thinking is here - please take the time to state your reasoning on the talk page, so that we can arrive at a consensus. It's quite possible that you and Mike are just interpreting something at cross purposes, and that this can be easily resolved through discussion. --McGeddon (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Searson (talk • contribs) 20:35, 6 October 2008
Warning[edit]
Please refrain from inserting unrelated information to Chad. Failure to comply with this request may result in a block. Regards, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know who you are or what your problem is but the information was indeed pertinent to chads in popular culture as the game was based on the chad paper controvesy. Next time please read material before destroying it.
Sincerely, Serrata