User talk:Arch NME

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Arch NME, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Obscenities and 3RR

Please do not add obscenities to Wikipedia, like you did in Talk:Zionism. Also, watch for WP:3RR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note for the reader - I used the term Bullshit. See my policy on profanity on my main user page. - Arch NME 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Arch NME, while it can be viewed poorly when editors utilize vulgarities, do know that Wikipedia is NOT censored. Humus sapiens is right about minding the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Take it easy. (→Netscott) 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
No offense was intended. It seems I'll have to read up on this three revert rule, but I do feel I'm correct in making my edits and trying to removed a bias from the article rather than add one. Is there some kind of ranking that decides that my edits can be reverted three times but this doesn't apply to the other person, something seems unfair here, I really wish people would just leave my edits be I stated my argument in the talk page. - Arch NME 05:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Know that you are entering into a conentious area that has partisans on both sides of the issue. If you are serious about trying to improve Wikipedia then I would suggest you consider looking at contributing for the long haul. Most of the time on contentious subjects here it is only over a long period of time that neutral point of view can be established in articles covering them. Follow the above links in Hummus sapiens' welcome message and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies in general. The more knowledgeable about them and the better you follow them the better the chances are that your edits will "stick" as you contribute. Also WP:3RR applies to everyone equally. (→Netscott) 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I have edited in response to your own edit. I've not reverted to your version because doing that generally spirals into an edit war which is severely frowned upon here on the Wiki. Outside of following Wikipedia policies, content is established through consensus reached through discussions surrounding given edits. (→Netscott) 05:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The WP:3RR thing seemed to indicate that an edit war or something like it was the process by which a concensus was reached. With the rule being only that no one person gets to fire more than three shots. from wp:3rr -> "Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by other users. This collaboration between agreeing users is intended to demonstrate that the community at large is in agreement over which of two (or more) competing versions is most accurate." I'm done editing it myself either way I supposed, I'll do some more reading though on the various rules and procedures. - Arch NME 06:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The 3RR is not an entitlement to 3 reverts in a 24 hour period but a rule of thumb. If you constantly revert over a period of time you likely be subject to blocking. I know the other editors who were reverting you enough to know that any simple reverting that I might have done would have just been subsequently re-reverted... so rather than even enter into it I edited the text leading to the quote to reflect that it was verifiably the views of the the quoted man (and the other name I know from research) read new antisemitism if you get a chance. Editing on Wikipedia in view of the need for consensus can be challenging particularly when there are groups of editors who tend to edit in a semi-coordinated fashion in support of those groups' points of view. Generally speaking if you're to make much of an impact here on contentious topics you're going to have to be patient and know your stuff. (→Netscott) 07:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need to revert something.

I added some junk to the Fair Labor Standards Act article yesterday and already some tard has vandalised it. The problem is I'm trying to revert it and he made two changes and saved them so when I go to the history and to compare and press the undo link it wants to change it back to the other one he made is there a way to tell it which revision to go back to? or is there an article somewhere that explains all this. - Arch NME 20:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This should be relatively easy:
Go to the "History" tab; you will see something like this:
  • 09:01, 25 January 2007 PurpleRain (Talk | contribs) (Removed useless link and made proper sentence case)
  • (cur) (last) 06:15, 25 January 2007 ThijsN (Talk | contribs) m (Extended the ASAP abbreviation)
  • (cur) (last) 10:25, 7 January 2007 Wizardman (Talk | contribs) (nah, changed my mind)
  • (cur) (last) 10:24, 7 January 2007 Wizardman (Talk | contribs) (cfr)
Somewhere down the list you should find the revision that you're looking for. Click the left radial button on that line and then click "compare selected versions". The old revision will appear on the left, the current on the right. It should say "XXX intermediate revisions not shown. To revert to the exact revision you clicked on, now click on "Revision of XXX date", "Edit this page" (which will give a warning), add your edit summary, and then save page.
Don't click the "undo" which only undoes the last edit. This way also give you the option of changing things before you save the page in question.
Hope this helps, if not, just put the "helpme" back up and someone else will try to help! SkierRMH 20:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that got it done. Thanks for the assistance. - Arch NME 21:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Mary-Sue Who?

I was reading a few of your comments on the AFD and what is this mary-sue thing you keep refering to? It's that a policy or guideline or just some colloquilism? Just curious. - Arch NME 17:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It's not a policy, it's just idiocy. A Mary-Sue is a personal wish fulfillment character that is overly perfect and is everything the author wishes she could be. They're a violation of several wiki-policies such as WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:MADEUP, but they aren't their own policy. Shimaspawn 18:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PARADOX AfD

I was just leaving a response to your first message when I got your second one. Based on that, I don't see any reason to keep the comments in the AfD, or even put them on my talk page. There's no reason for two good editors to get into a pissing match that would just reflect poorly on everyone. Your comments actually made me step away from that AfD, which was a good thing. Seems like it's destined for a "no consensus" anyway. No hard feelings.--Djrobgordon 08:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

none at all. ~ Arch NME 08:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hip hop + Madden + Critically valid

Hiya. I think you misunderstood what I was saying in the AfD for Feezy 350. My personal tastes hardly factored into the equation. If they had been featured as a "critic's choice" compilation, I would consider that notable. To cut to the center of my argument - Madden soundtracks are not a reliable indicator of quality, and hence not a reliable indicator of musical relevance, and hence not to be considered "notable" per WP:BAND. --Action Jackson IV 23:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't misunderstand. Nor did I disagree with your argument. Just some retarded comment. You said "in other words, man there are some truly dreadful songs" I said personal opinion of song quality shouldn't be a factor. That's an opinion even if not a direct one about that particular song. Anyway... blah blah blah, this is all so silly I don't even have the words. Forget about it man. - Arch NME 12:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DC Meetup notice

Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Maryland, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 00:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia meetup

As someone who may live or work near Washington D.C., you may be interested - if you've not heard already - about the meetup scheduled for Saturday, May 17th, at Union Station. For details, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4.

You are receiving this automated message because your userpage appears in Category:Wikipedians in Maryland. Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)