User talk:Catiline63: Difference between revisions
→September 2008: you already knew this |
→October 2008: new section |
||
Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
{{unblock reviewed|1=My last reversion of 10th Sept (for which I was blocked) was unconnected to the reversions of 9th Sept (for which I was warned). Not also that the guy who reported me did not understand the reason for my reversion, and that it was ultimately valid: I edited (citing source), he reverted (misunderstanding my source), I reverted (pointing out his misunderstanding), he reverted (without addressing my point) then reported me to you. The discussion on the discussion page supports my point and source.[[User:Catiline63|Catiline63]] ([[User talk:Catiline63#top|talk]]) 10:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)|decline=The three-revert rule is not about who is right; it's an electric fence to stop edit wars getting out of hand. Generally speaking, you shouldn't be revert-warring ''at all''! — [[User:Werdna|<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #404080">Werdna</span>]] • [[User talk:Werdna|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]] 11:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)}} |
{{unblock reviewed|1=My last reversion of 10th Sept (for which I was blocked) was unconnected to the reversions of 9th Sept (for which I was warned). Not also that the guy who reported me did not understand the reason for my reversion, and that it was ultimately valid: I edited (citing source), he reverted (misunderstanding my source), I reverted (pointing out his misunderstanding), he reverted (without addressing my point) then reported me to you. The discussion on the discussion page supports my point and source.[[User:Catiline63|Catiline63]] ([[User talk:Catiline63#top|talk]]) 10:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)|decline=The three-revert rule is not about who is right; it's an electric fence to stop edit wars getting out of hand. Generally speaking, you shouldn't be revert-warring ''at all''! — [[User:Werdna|<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #404080">Werdna</span>]] • [[User talk:Werdna|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]] 11:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)}} |
||
::And this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_T._Kirk&diff=237528675&oldid=237518289 was explained] to you yesterday in the James Kirk article discussion page. If you think someone is misinterpreting something, head to the article discussion and take it up there. That is especially important after you've received a 3RR warning. - [[User:Arcayne|<span style="color:black">'''Arcayne'''</span>]] [[User talk:Arcayne|<small><span style="color:gray">(<sup>'''cast a spell'''</sup>)</span></small>]] 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
::And this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_T._Kirk&diff=237528675&oldid=237518289 was explained] to you yesterday in the James Kirk article discussion page. If you think someone is misinterpreting something, head to the article discussion and take it up there. That is especially important after you've received a 3RR warning. - [[User:Arcayne|<span style="color:black">'''Arcayne'''</span>]] [[User talk:Arcayne|<small><span style="color:gray">(<sup>'''cast a spell'''</sup>)</span></small>]] 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
== October 2008 == |
|||
Bringing someone [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yuri_Gagarin&diff=prev&oldid=244584803 back from the dead] is '''not''' a minor edit. [[User:Shenme|Shenme]] ([[User talk:Shenme|talk]]) 03:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:14, 12 October 2008
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 100... 200
And here are several pages on what to avoid:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which are produced by clicking on the button; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place
This welcome message was sent by Avi15 at 13:34, August 3, 2008 (UTC) |
Since you decided to sign in...
You might wish to have a link to the responses posted in your anon account. I reproduce some of them here, as you might be unaware that you are in violation of 3RR, and need to know that any subsequent reverts will result in a block for 3RR:
Canon
We don't use it here. It has no value whatsoever. The coin of the realm in Wikipedia is Verifiability, Notability and Reliability. Citations are the only thing we rely upon. If someone writes a citable article talking about how Kirk and Spock make creepy monkey pon-farr in the backseat of 65 Buick, then we can include it. The litmus for inclusion is citability, not truth. Fortunately, there are other sources which overwhelm the other citable info and thus can be removed under the argument of undue weight. Imdb is not a reliable, citable source. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Edit -warring (3RR warning)
Please stop. Your opinion, while polite, has not found a consensus in the article discussion, and further attempts to include information about canon or other fannish concepts against consensus will likely result in a block for edit-warring. I would urge you to find (or build) a consensus before re-adding the information. Look at the matter another way: you are not convincing at least three other people who disagree with you, and they will revert your adding this information. You need to be aware that these reverts are not vandalism, as you have characterized it here. You are not going to be able to revert and add the material in again without violating 3RR.
You are in fact in violation of 3RR currently (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), and you could be reported and blocked for this gross infraction. Please review the 3RR policies and make no more reverts to the article for 24 hours. If you do, I will report you at WP:AIV, and you will be subsequently blocked.
If you need help understanding our policies and guidelines, please ask. Charging forth like a bull in a china shop will prove to be an expensive misbehavior for yourself. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You are properly notified. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- You were warned. This edit constitutes your 8th revert in less than 24 hours. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
September 2008
Catiline63 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My last reversion of 10th Sept (for which I was blocked) was unconnected to the reversions of 9th Sept (for which I was warned). Not also that the guy who reported me did not understand the reason for my reversion, and that it was ultimately valid: I edited (citing source), he reverted (misunderstanding my source), I reverted (pointing out his misunderstanding), he reverted (without addressing my point) then reported me to you. The discussion on the discussion page supports my point and source.Catiline63 (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The three-revert rule is not about who is right; it's an electric fence to stop edit wars getting out of hand. Generally speaking, you shouldn't be revert-warring at all! — Werdna • talk 11:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- And this was explained to you yesterday in the James Kirk article discussion page. If you think someone is misinterpreting something, head to the article discussion and take it up there. That is especially important after you've received a 3RR warning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
October 2008
Bringing someone back from the dead is not a minor edit. Shenme (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)