User talk:82.2.139.211

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I noticed you are known only as an IP address; that means you are not signed up. To sign up, you only need to click Create account and choose a username and password. You don't need to provide any personal information. If you sign up, you'll have a username that others can use to recognize you and leave you messages on the wiki. You'll be able to sign your name just by typing four tildes (~~~~) when you leave someone else a message. Plus, you (and others) will easily be able to see a list of all your contributions to Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask at the Village pump, or feel free to ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Kevin Walter 14:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Please do not touch any importance classifications until we're done discussing on the Jurassic Park page. Wiki-newbie 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Heimstern Läufer 16:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 17:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to review

Thank you for your input at my editor review.

I still don't understand how you determined your re-categorization of the film articles' importances, and since you seemed to want to revert back your changes at first, I was working to preserve the status quo. Your charges on those who reverted you did not seem fair, considering you seemed to be in violation of the same charges yourself. (I suppose I could've put it in that nice way earlier.) Can you tell me, though, why you did not simply remove the importance scale, but instead re-adjusted it? There wasn't any default level of importance to set, so your importance revision edits did not seem to make sense with the arguments that you were attempting to make.

I apologized to EVula because my revert was an accident (a bit quick on the draw), where I was trying to revert the changes you had made. Can you explain to me how your judgment in the importance was more reliable than whoever set the importance before? That is why I charged you with the same accusations that you made to your reverters; I did not see any difference in the previous editor's preference to your preference. In addition, my awareness of your series of changes was drawn by your 3RR issue with Wiki-newbie, but I did not oppose your changes because of my acquaintanceship with him.

My wording could have been more civil, but to be honest, I didn't consider your wording to be bureaucratic and civil. "Fixing" the importance with your edit summaries of "pov silliness" did not seem to assume good faith, especially when your own preferences could be considered just as silly, especially when you challenged reverts to your edits to be without merit.

Again, please explain to me how you determined the importance scale of film articles without overlaying your POV on top of the previous importance. If you repeated the process, would you have done anything differently, or would you have stood by your re-evaluations of the film articles' importance? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that people review your editing (by your request!) to the ends of helping you become a better editor, not to the ends of debating you. Soliciting review and then debating it on someone's talk page belies a lack of maturity at best, and bad faith at worst. 132.161.187.25 09:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not feel that I was helped to be a better editor by the harassing tone of this editor's review, and the editor's accusations were based on the fact that he was right, made only hours after the conflict that we had. Since this editor does not have authentic membership on Wikipedia, I asked to know his justification in his own adjustments of the importance scale. You even go so far to call my request for information a "lack of maturity" and "bad faith at worst", and I don't appreciate that. The reviewer is not always right, and I would have much preferred a more objective, neutrally-worded review from this editor than all the bold accusations that were made of me. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filmographies

Woo! I got my first Barnstar! Thanks, 82.2.139.211, whoever you are... talkGiler S 15:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! I'll make space for it on my front page. Those wikitables weren't so bad once I got into the swing of it. Regards, Mr Stephen 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)