User talk:Wazzabee7

September 2014

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Aquiline nose does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, even if it is very brief, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added an explanation. This was mentioned by another user as well, where the term does not have any respectable evidence. None of the papers cited mention this term as an alternative.

Did you actually read the cite I added and the talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Aquiline nose shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will recommend that YOU STOP EDITING THAT PAGE BECAUSE NONE OF THE ARTICLES MENTIONED IN THAT PAGE SAY THAT THE TERM "HOOK NOSE" IS OFFICIAL. IF YOU DO NOT I WILL PERSONALLY FILE A CLAIM AGAINST YOU TO REMOVE YOU FROM BEING AN EDITOR. IF YOU HAVE THE ARTICLE PLEASE REFER IT TO ME AND I WILL ENSURE THAT IT IS AN ACTUAL OFFICIAL AND RESPECTABLE SOURCE

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Aquiline nose. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were told to look at the article's talk page: Talk:Aquiline_nose#Hook_nose_cite. You are welcome to comment on the source but be aware yours is just one opinion and will carry no special weight. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop threatening me, in fact, I have acted by the rules. I have looked at this"SOURCE" I suggest you look at it. First of all it is in another language it is not english, and nowhere does this term IN ENGLISH appear as "HOOKNOSE." In one language, one word does not translate exactly the same as another. IF you want to write an article on the term HOOKNOSE, WHICH IS A DEROGATORY TERM AND IT HAS A HISTORY IN ENGLISH, THEN DO SO, but do not put the term HOOKNOSE as an alternative to Aquiline Nose, Roman Nose. Not even the official dictionaries have an entry for this word. I suggest you make the edit, or I will file a report.

LOL. The source is Webster's dictionary. You know, the standard English dictionary. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source you placed under your comment was a Polish source: something like " A Human in Time and Space" in translation. And please speak to me in a formal manner. FIND THE DEFINITION OF AQUILINE NOSE in the dictionary. IT DOES NOT SHOW AS SYNONYM: HOOK-NOSE. HOOK NOSE IS A TERM THAT OBVIOUSLY EXISTS IN ENGLISH AND IT IS DEROGATORY, WHY DO YOU NOT DO RESEARCH ON IT?? I expect formal sources that put side by side: aquiline nose, roman nose and hook nose. If this does not exist, then you cannot put it in that article by rule. Create an alternate page instead which describes what a Hook-Nose is instead with the history behind it.

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.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Aquiline nose

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is here at WP:AN3 (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]