Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:48, 13 July 2005

PETA

Please don't add to the intro that PETA is a quasi-terrorist group unless you can attribute it to an authoritative, non-partisan source. SlimVirgin 07:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Viriditas | Talk 21:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I came here to warn you about the three revert rule too.. I see Viriditas has done that already. Please remember the policy on no original research - neologisms are specifically excluded from Misplaced Pages. One or two passing comments on a blog are not evidence that a term is widely-used, either. For a similar dispute, see the discussion about the use of the term "santorum" in the Rick Santorum and Dan Savage articles. Rhobite 21:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Uthar. You seem to be fairly new, so you may not be aware that a partial revert counts as a revert under the 3RR policy. It may not be immediately obvious, but if you spend a little time browsing here , and perhaps peep at some of the archives, you'll see that there are many cases where people are blocked for bringing part of a page (even though not the whole page) back to a previous state. Otherwise, anyone could get round the rule by adding an extra comma to a different paragraph. I'm not going to report you on this occasion, as it seems from one of your edit summaries that you didn't know a partial revert didn't count, but if you keep it up, you're almost certain to be get blocked. Not really worth it, is it? Regards. Ann Heneghan 22:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have just seen your vandalism of Viriditas's user page. This is a warning that further such actions are likely to lead to your being blocked. Ann Heneghan 22:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

User-page vandalism

SlimVirgin 22:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Why not my own user page?

Only place I can post is User talk:Uthar Wynn 01. Why can't I edit User:Uthar Wynn 01 too? Makes little sense to me... --Uthar Wynn 01 22:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

About the whole "schaivo" thing

(meant to be posted on the schaivo talk page, but then I went and got myself blocked)

Ok, I give up. Just so you know, I didn't invent the first 2 uses of "schaivo" as a term, someone I know did, but I admit that the word isn't exactly widespread (even though it is legitimate slang among a limited group). I've had my fun with the veggie lady article, now I'll leave it alone unless I find something genuinely useful to add.

To Veriditas, sorry for defacing your user page to potray you as a pedophile homosexual jew-nazi. Just got frustrated with your persistence and your insistence that I cite my sources. Next to none of the slang entries on Misplaced Pages "cite their sources", and yet no one complains about those. Hoevever, I do admit that my contribution on the usage of "schaivo" as a term was not exactly necessary and was mainly there for humorous and sarcastic effect, and you were right to remove it. I still disagree with your reasoning, however. "Cite your sources" has become an applicable complaint to such a wide swath of Misplaced Pages that its usage as a reason to remove an article is little better than "I don't like it".

To GordonWattsDotCom, my name, Uthar Wynn is the name of the master of the Sith Academy on Korriban in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. I'm going to get around to creating a genuine user page at some point with links to my sites (heres one right now:http://utharwynn.deviantart.com/) and other info. Glad someone enjoyed my schaivo contribution.

Got myself a 24-hour block for this stuff. --Uthar Wynn 01 19:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh joy. Seems I was confused about how the block system works. Apparently, the IP block resets its timer back to the full 24 hours every time you attempt to edit a page. That means even though my "user block" expired already by my reckoning, my "IP block" now has 23-something hours to go since I accedentaly tried to edit my own user page a few minutes ago. "Oh no, we'd better punish him for trying to do something theres no chance in heck he will be able to do (the IP adress is already blocked!)" Made even more absurd by the fact that I "attempted to edit" my own user page. I have some really "colorful" words I could use to describe this policy, but I think I'll just drop it. --Uthar Wynn 01 19:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't get the impression that I support you or that I think you shouldn't have been blocked, but if your attempted edit of your user page really was due to a misunderstanding, why not go to SlimVirgin's page, click the "E-mail this user" link on the left, apolgize for your vandalism, and ask to be unblocked? Of course, SlimVirgin would be under no obligation to unblock you, but he/she might choose to do so if the violation of the 24-hour period really was a mistake, especially since, I think, the vandalism was a first offence. Ann Heneghan 19:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)