78:
hobby)? You admit the contribution is accurate, you concede that the source is good, so just fix it and everyone is happy. And it would literally take you 30 seconds. But why choose the easy, conflict-free option, when the alternative gives you a chance to lecture and threaten people, right? In any case, I disagree with your judgement about the entire matter, so go ahead and make your third revert if you simply can't do otherwise and we'll see how it plays out. I'm not the one with an apparent pattern of bad conduct and a series of ongoing conflicts here.
120:
77:
Wouldn't it be simpler, and settle the issue once and for all, if you would just remove the citations you don't like, put the one you do like into the form you prefer, and all in less time than it took you to come here to complain about me (and start yet another edit war, which seems to be your
92:
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the saying "give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime". Besides, it's not my job to babysit your edits, and none of what I've said above is particularly onerous for you to handle on your own. And, it's
139:. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Knowledge (XXG) is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use
48:
or something similar so your sources can be more easily identified and provide relevant information to readers about the source of the information you're adding.
128:
51:
Only ONE of the sources you spammed in that article actually addressed the claim made in your contribution. The other sources, in addition to being from
136:
102:
68:
29:. It's YOUR responsibility to provide sources for challenged statements, NOT MINE. If you don't like that arrangement, you can
59:
You can choose to remove the extraneous sources, or if you elect to leave them, I'll remove the entire edit again. —
132:
140:
98:
94:
64:
60:
30:
26:
79:
42:
93:
policy/guideline, but don't let a little thing like rules come between you and being lazy. —
144:
52:
119:
147:
105:
87:
71:
124:
55:, don't support the statement your edit makes and are irrelevant.
31:
log out and go find something else to do with your time
8:
33:. Otherwise, get used to it and move on.
27:disrupt Knowledge (XXG) to make a point
7:
123:Thank you for your contributions to
14:
131:here, so please keep your edits
118:
148:20:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
36:Don't use naked <ref: -->
163:
106:04:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
88:04:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
72:06:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
83:
127:, but we are trying to
129:write an encyclopedia
143:instead. Thank you.
53:unreliable sources
154:
122:
47:
41:
38:entries. Do use
162:
161:
157:
156:
155:
153:
152:
151:
116:
45:
39:
19:
12:
11:
5:
160:
158:
115:
114:September 2024
112:
111:
110:
109:
108:
57:
56:
49:
34:
21:Three things:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
159:
150:
149:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
121:
113:
107:
104:
100:
96:
91:
90:
89:
85:
81:
76:
75:
74:
73:
70:
66:
62:
54:
50:
44:
37:</ref: -->
35:
32:
28:
24:
23:
22:
17:Adrian Pasdar
16:
141:your sandbox
117:
80:Demesne Lord
58:
20:
145:Alith Anar
95:Locke Cole
61:Locke Cole
43:cite web
137:neutral
133:factual
125:Rob Rue
25:Don't
135:and
84:talk
101:•
97:•
86:)
67:•
63:•
46:}}
40:{{
103:c
99:t
82:(
69:c
65:t
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
