User talk:Uthar Wynn 01/archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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 (talk) 07:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Three revert rule
You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --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 Wikipedia. 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 [1], 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 [2] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] User-page vandalism
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Why not my own user page?
Only place I can post is User talk:Uthar Wynn 01. Why can't I edit User:Uthar Wynn 01 too? Makes little sense to me... --Uthar Wynn 01 22:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] About the whole "schaivo" thing
(meant to be posted on the schaivo talk page, but then I went and got myself blocked)
Ok, I give up. Just so you know, I didn't invent the first 2 uses of "schaivo" as a term, someone I know did, but I admit that the word isn't exactly widespread (even though it is legitimate slang among a limited group). I've had my fun with the veggie lady article, now I'll leave it alone unless I find something genuinely useful to add.
To Veriditas, sorry for defacing your user page to potray you as a pedophile homosexual jew-nazi. Just got frustrated with your persistence and your insistence that I cite my sources. Next to none of the slang entries on Wikipedia "cite their sources", and yet no one complains about those. Hoevever, I do admit that my contribution on the usage of "schaivo" as a term was not exactly necessary and was mainly there for humorous and sarcastic effect, and you were right to remove it. I still disagree with your reasoning, however. "Cite your sources" has become an applicable complaint to such a wide swath of Wikipedia that its usage as a reason to remove an article is little better than "I don't like it".
To GordonWattsDotCom, my name, Uthar Wynn is the name of the master of the Sith Academy on Korriban in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. I'm going to get around to creating a genuine user page at some point with links to my sites (heres one right now:http://utharwynn.deviantart.com/) and other info. Glad someone enjoyed my schaivo contribution.
Got myself a 24-hour block for this stuff. --Uthar Wynn 01 19:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oh joy. Seems I was confused about how the block system works. Apparently, the IP block resets its timer back to the full 24 hours every time you attempt to edit a page. That means even though my "user block" expired already by my reckoning, my "IP block" now has 23-something hours to go since I accidentally tried to edit my own user page a few minutes ago. "Oh no, we'd better punish him for trying to do something theres no chance in heck he will be able to do (the IP adress is already blocked!)" Made even more absurd by the fact that I "attempted to edit" my own user page. I have some really "colorful" words I could use to describe this policy, but I think I'll just drop it. --Uthar Wynn 01 19:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Don't get the impression that I support you or that I think you shouldn't have been blocked, but if your attempted edit of your user page really was due to a misunderstanding, why not go to SlimVirgin's page, click the "E-mail this user" link on the left, apologize for your vandalism, and ask to be unblocked? Of course, SlimVirgin would be under no obligation to unblock you, but he/she might choose to do so if the violation of the 24-hour period really was a mistake, especially since, I think, the vandalism was a first offence. Ann Heneghan 19:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I've already done that, just waiting for a reply at this point. I didn't realize attempting to edit would result in a block renewal, that really seems like a ridiculous policy. --Uthar Wynn 01 20:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] Your edits to Terri Schiavo
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. I note that you have already been blocked for vandalism. This is your last warning.-gadfium 03:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- (you replied on my talk page) Please refrain from indiscriminate reversions and discuss why you think my contributions are not appropriate on the talk page. I do not believe my edits contained any factual inaccuracies and I would appreciate it if you would not classify my edits as vandalism so readily, you really should make justification before allegations of this nature.
- I think it's pretty clear to any reasonable person that what you are adding is nonsense.-gadfium 03:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 48 hours for persistently adding nonsense to Terri Schiavo. I also note that you have tried to avoid the block by editing anonymously. Please take the time out to consider whether you can make useful contributions to Wikipedia.-gadfium 03:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's pretty obvious you blocked me as a result of a personal vendetta. In my final edit on the schaivo article I made a revert that removed every single one of my edits and with a description including the phrase "please don't ban me". Explain the delay between this final Schaivo edit and you blocking me, it really seems like the reason you blocked me is because I got on your nerves. --Uthar Wynn 01 03:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
You were told not to add nonsense to the article. You then did so, apparently believing yourself to be logged out. If you wanted to avoid the block, perhaps you could have found a more appropriate course of action, such as making sensible edits. As for the personal vendetta: when have I ever encountered you before, apart from your adding of slang to this same article (which I didn't revert)?-gadfium 04:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Fine. I just wish you could have made it 24 hours instead of 48. It seems kind of excessive to me, given that I have a history of useful edits. --Uthar Wynn 01 04:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
If you agree that your edits which led to the block were inappropriate, and promise to behave in future, I'll reduce the block to 24 hours.-gadfium 04:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I do admit that my edits were a form of vandalism. I'm going to stay away from the Schaivo article from now on, that's the only article I've ever vandalized and I assure you it will be the last.--Uthar Wynn 01 06:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Your block has been changed to expire 21 hours from now.-gadfium 06:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] RFC on SlimVirgin
I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
