I've just deleted your recent addition to this page, because it was a response to the point under which it was placed rather than an expansion/correction. Please see our policy page Repair, Don't Respond. If you're going to put a kilobyte of text into the page, use it to make the example correct, rather than tell the original writer why he's wrong.
Topic on User talk:Jason taylor
The original entry was wrong and the only way to repair it is to delete the whole thing.
That's still different from what you did, which was basically start a discussion in the page. If it's wrong, delete/correct it. Don't debate it.
How about, "These were different Turks" and be done with it?
Jason, you did it again. Please read ATT:REPAIR. Fix the example, don't add a sub-bullet point.
You're being deliberately obtuse, aren't you, Jason? Do we really need to start bringing up tempbans again when the solution is simple?
Do you wish to endorse information that can be confirmed to be erroneous?
Your question is answered in the text at ATT:REPAIR. Please read that page.
Very well, though it is only fair that the Tropper knows what happened. But then that is typical.
Even if this weren't against the rules, it's still an ineffective way to notify the troper who originally made the edit. If you have something you'd like to discuss with the troper, start a thread on their Talk page. And try to keep it civil.
I also suggest you take a look at the latest revision of Media Research Failure/Film, and observe how it corrects the erroneous information without resorting to calling out the original contributor. Please try to model your future edits off of this example.
For future reference, here is a link to QuestionableSanity's edit.
This is an excellent example of Repair, Don't Respond. Jason, this is what you should have done to begin with.
The point is making the entry correct, not demonstrating that you know better than the original writer of the passage. Correct the text. Do not wave a flag and shout "hey, I'm smarter than you."
EDIT: And if you delete the passage again after I've just restored it, you will get a week's tempban for edit-warring with an admin.
In a related matter (in that it relates to both the wiki's Style Guide - which Looney Toons brought to your attention nine months ago - and the suggestions against Natter), I see that you added both a second-level point and a third-level point at the same time as a Justifying Edit in this revision of the page that Looney Toons reverted - in short, you were arguing with yourself. This looks extremely sloppy.
Please consider yourself to be On Notice. Despite the workload we have, the moderators will be reviewing all of your edits for the foreseeable future.
@Labster @GethN7 @Looney Toons @QuestionableSanity @DocColress @LulzKiller @SelfCloak