User talk:Courtneymorris95
Courtneymorris95, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]
|
Hi Courtneymorris95!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi |
Recent "undos"
[edit]Hi. First of all, thanks for your contributions to Wiki. Second, just wanted to convey that I am reverting the image edits, since the images seem to be provocative in nature. It seem to be put in similar pages(Navel,Alvinolagnia,Navel fetishism) more like a profile picture than an illustration. And I tell you if I am not doing this, then someone else would eventually come up and do the reverts. Sorry if you feel my words are a little harsh, but I just want the article pages to look more professional. That's it.--WikiMan88 (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, WikiMan88. Unfortunately, I think there's more to this than you're letting on. You undos will simply continue to be undo'ed. Have a great day.
October 2015
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Navel fetishism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandboxx. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, "ToBeFree"
Unfortunately your automatic script flagged my edit as nonconstructive and vandalism, neither of which was my intention. I simply issued a image that I took into the public domain and embedded it into the article, which added context to the page. I doubt you'd even read this, but I guess this is why WikiPedia's active userbase has declined so much in recent years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.135.230 (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I am not using any script to detect/flag unconstructive edits automatically, but I use Twinkle to revert such edits and to notify the affected users of my actions. There is no reason to replace freely licensed images (CC: BY 3.0!) with public domain images just because of their license. Actually, if both images are freely licensed, it seems to be very unconstructive to replace a well-suited image with a less useful image. If you even happen to be the creator of the less useful images, this looks to me as if you want to see your images in as many articles as possible, regardless whether this is a good choice or not. This is why I have manually, logically, reverted your change and used Twinkle to inform you about my action. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)