|
[edit] LOST Spoken Article
Hey there Andrew, I am hearing your spoken article right now, you did a great job! keep up the good work. --mo-- (Talk | #info |  ) 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, Muhaidib! SergeantBolt 17:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] And Julia Stiles
I have just listened to your spoken version of Julia Stiles and I am very impressed. You did a brilliant job! Great work! Rossrs 14:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! SergeantBolt 09:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lost episode "Tale of Two Cities"
Hello, I and others have noticed that you've inserted, at least once, Kate Austen as the flashback for this episode. Unless you have a valid and verifiable source for this, it's inappropriate to Wikipedia to do so. Please participate in the discussion on the appropriate talk pages if you have a different view. Thanks, PKtm 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, and thanks for the apology. I've noticed how you're now pursuing those who doggedly reinsert ol' Kate, and appreciate it. -- PKtm 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] spoken articles
 |
|
The Spoken Barnstar |
| SergeantBolt is awarded this barnstar for his work in recording two FAs and the Lost series for WP. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Henry Gale
If you consider yourself such a big Lost fan, how do you not know that Henry Gale is going to be a main character next season? --SilvaStorm
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page 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.
- PS: You have already violated 3RR, If you make annother revert again to "Episodes of Lost (season 3)" you will be reported for a 3RR vio. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, SergeantBolt... Matthew left a similar message on my talk page as well. He doesn't seem to understand 3RR, and certainly doesn't understand the spirit of it, in that it's meant to stop content-related dispute escalation, as opposed to what we have here, a string of anon editors (possibly the same person under different IPs) intentionally inserting the same disputed content and refusing to participate in discussion of that. I've left copious notes on Matthew's talk page, but I think it's unlikely he'll change his behavior. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton. -- PKtm 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- It still counts as a reversion as you are reinstating a previous copy. However i wont report you, just wait until its been 24h since you last revert ;) (! Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Its not vandalism however, it is a content dispute. Because you dont agree it should be there (the same goes for PLtm) and annother user thinks it should be there. That makes it a content dispute, because you think it is vandalism doesnt neceserilly make it vandalism. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 17:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The exact same could be said for teh two of you twos actions.. it could be considerd vandalism in you removing it. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 18:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Note that MatthewFenton reported you for 3RR, here. I left commentary there, and pointed the admins to his RfC page. The Lost page has now been protected, thank goodness--probably something we should have asked for ages ago, instead of just reverting. It's a shame that people (both anons AND Matthew) have to be this disruptive. -- PKtm 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Our comments crossed, here; I was already commenting on the 3RR page. Don't worry about it. Especially since the page has now been protected, our actions have been vindicated, and particularly against the backdrop of the RfC where multiple editors sound off about Matthew's long-standing negative behavior, it's clear that his 3RR report has utterly no merit. It will be rejected out of hand. -- PKtm 19:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Below text makes it pretty apparent that said edits where not vandalism.
- Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.
Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think you need to check edit historys, i have not edited said page. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 19:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
SergeantBolt, I'd encourage you to add your thoughts (calmly, matter-of-factly) to the above-mentioned RfC, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton. Sheesh. It's getting really hard for me to Assume good faith about this user when I see repeated behavior like this. -- PKtm 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding your comments, and glad to see that the bogus 3RR accusation was so flatly rejected. Unfortunately, I'm now of the mindset that this user basically will not change--I mean, look at the amount of stuff in the RfC, and yet he continues. Very discouraging when you think about how Wikipedia is in an uphill battle against behavior like that. -- PKtm 20:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
|
