| Revision as of 12:47, 19 May 2006 editRadioKirk (talk | contribs)18,518 edits →Log links: unblock← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:17, 23 May 2006 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits 3Rr warningNext edit → | ||
| Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
| ::Temporarily does '''not''' mean 24 hours. I'll lift the block so you can take part in the discussion ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | ::Temporarily does '''not''' mean 24 hours. I'll lift the block so you can take part in the discussion ''']''' (]) <em><strong>]</strong></em> 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::I didn't forget, I was busy with other matters and never got any messages. ] has unblocked you for the purposes of discussion. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 12:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | ::I didn't forget, I was busy with other matters and never got any messages. ] has unblocked you for the purposes of discussion. <tt>]]</tt> <tt>]</tt> 12:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == 3Rr warning == | |||
| This is just to warn you that you're in danger of violating ] at ] if you haven't already. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 13:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:17, 23 May 2006
|
StarCraft Hybrid Scan
No, I never got to scan it. I don't have access to a scanner.
Wii
Please stop adding "wee" to the first sentence of this article. Use the discussion page and have your say. Havok (T/C) 11:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- If a solution is not found, I will take it to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation. Havok (T/C) 12:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Is that a threat?
- If you were actually making any attempt to debate rather than just blindly reverting there would be no problems, but as it is it's clear you don't actually want to discuss it, just enforce your POV interests in keeping the reference out of the article, which is clearly ran by fanboyism, looking at your userpage. --Col. Hauler 12:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have added a request for mediation. Havok (T/C) 12:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. Should I revert myself or would that count as breaking it? I'm confused. :¦ --Col. Hauler 13:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please read WP:3RR more carefully. 3RR does not count when reverting vandalism, such as the reverts I made to the anon vandal. However, your edits are not reverting vandalism, you have continuously reverted despite multiple other contributors' objections. Please read WP:POINT as well. I haven't reported you for violating 3RR yet, but if it continues I'm afraid I'll have to. Sorry. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 13:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- You are the one vandalizing, not me. Please read the talk page... --Col. Hauler 13:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
I can easily tell you I am not 81.182.142.141, seeing as this address resolvs to .hu I am currently located on a machine with the ending .no. Meaning, I'm in Norway. Nice try to frame me though. Havok (T/C) 13:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm giving both you and User:Havok a 24-hour timeout. Both of you, please learn WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. RadioKirk talk to me 13:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why is Havok getting a timeout? He's just trying to talk some sense here. -Numbnumb 21:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't put "sockpuppet" tags on people's pages just because someone corrected someone else's grammar. That's seriously uncivil. Ashibaka tock 04:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Civility in the Wii hours of the morning
Please refrain from making personal attacks against editors. Havok is not vandalising, and you are not reverting vandalism. We must all strive for civility on Wiki, even when confronted by those who strongly disagree with edits we make. I also must remind you of the 3 revert rule- you're getting close to it, so it would be a good idea to take some time off and cool down.
Cheers! Daniel Davis 09:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
I put previous messages in my archive on my talk page - please stop reverting my talk page. If you have anything to say please put it on my talk page and I will read it.HappyVR 10:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Wii
The name section was relatively stable and I think in terms of importance possibly in the right place in the miscellaneous section - please stop placing it at the top of the article - if only because this causes 'edit wars' - there is a section in the talk page for wii I have added. Hopefully someone with an outside view to this issue will contribute to it.HappyVR 10:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
3RR again
You have made at least three reverts to Wii in the past 24 hours, despite consensus reached on Talk:Wii. As you have recieved prior warnings about the Three Revert Rule (see above), any more will result in a 24 hour block, as per policy. Regards, smurrayinchester 12:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Will (@) T 13:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
More Wii
I have attempted a compromise at this article. Please use the discussion to raise any concerns. I would like to see this edit war stop. Thank you. :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Presuming the blocking admin has no objections, I have a proposal: I want you in on the conversation currently taking place here, which would require that I lift your 3RR block. I would ask that you do not alter my compromise until a consensus is reached (and if necessary), and I would demand that all editors remain civil and assume good faith. Do you agree? RadioKirk talk to me 18:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC).
- Yeah I agree. Sorry, only just noticed this. Hope you notice it too, lol, since I can't message you. =\ --Col. Hauler 09:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, let me check with the blocking admin. RadioKirk talk to me 16:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Template db-meta
Hello. I've reverted your changes to the above template as the change did not work correctly when applied to articles with spaces in them. Regards, MartinRe 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
font -> span_span-2006-05-15T07:31:00.000Z">
I've converted your <font color="#002bb8"></font> to <span style="color:#002bb8"></span> as it is more appropriate for XHTML, and allows forward-compatability. It is questionable however if such stealthy links should be standard. I was one of the first ones to start putting class=plainlinks into the user templates, but that does leave the color noticably 'external' so people can still tell it isn't a wikilink. If this was to become standard, an addition to MediaWiki:Common.css for something like .stealthexternallink would be useful. Splarka (rant) 07:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)_span"> _span">
- Not an admin, can't :)
- But yeah I see what you mean, kinda. The thing is they aren't really external links, it's just a problem in the MediaWiki software that we can't make internal links to pages with arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/Randomness?action=history is no more an "external link" than http://en.wikipedia.org/Randomness yet we can only link the former by setting it up as an external link. It's pretty silly really. --Col. Hauler 11:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but we don't need to admin in order to facilitate change, just to engage it ^_^. I've implemented such a test (:visited, :hover, etc) at Uncyclopedia:MediaWiki:Common.css (at the bottom) and put it into Uncyclopedia:Template:User and Uncyclopedia:Template:IP. You can see the effect at Uncyclopedia:Uncyclopedia:Ban_Patrol. Splarka (rant) 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, started a request: Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#User_templates_css.3F. Splarka (rant) 07:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
RFM rejected.
A request for mediation that you were involved in, involving the articles Wii and Wee, was denied due to the opposition of one or more participants. Regards, Ral315 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Log links
Do you have any ideas on the question raised here? (I will watch this page) NoSeptember 15:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm currently banned still. Sceptre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) covertly did it without leaving a message here for a full week, while the other guy who did just as many reverts as me got 24 hours...
- Have a look at this (click): #Wii. I was promised to be unblocked but looks like RadioKirk forgot to check back on this page... Do you think you could point him over here please? --Col. Hauler 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'll leave a note for him to come here. Let me know if you know how to get url links to look nice (without the two tiny squares), that has always bothered me. NoSeptember 15:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Temporarily does not mean 24 hours. I'll lift the block so you can take part in the discussion Will (@) T 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't forget, I was busy with other matters and never got any messages. Sceptre has unblocked you for the purposes of discussion. RadioKirk talk to me 12:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
3Rr warning
This is just to warn you that you're in danger of violating 3RR at WP:NPA if you haven't already. SlimVirgin 13:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)