This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) at 22:47, 12 July 2005 (→User-page vandalism: correction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:47, 12 July 2005 by SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) (→User-page vandalism: correction)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
Hi Uthar Wynn 01! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! , SqueakBox 02:51, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
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
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SlimVirgin 22:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)