User talk:Arcayne: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:41, 13 June 2009 editTreasuryTag (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users46,645 editsm Reverted edits by Giuseppe gariballsi (talk) to last version by Erikeltic← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:57, 13 June 2009 edit undoMikeWazowski (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users33,732 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 103:		Line 103:
	Thank you,		Thank you,
	] (]) 05:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)		] (]) 05:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

			] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:T-1000\| according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:\|{{{2}}}\|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:57, 13 June 2009

This user values third opinions and occasionally provides one.

Caveat
This user reserves the right to be more fun than you

Tuesday 14 January16:14 UTC

♦My Spellbook♦ (Or, "How I Learned to Stop Hatin' & Love All the Crazy")
Arc 001 Arc 002 Arc 003 Arc 004

In meetings all morning (in and out)

Weekly RfA Dramaz

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

What was archived

* What has gone before...

Trek Test

Arcayne, do you want to weigh in on WP:Star Trek? The test page I put together is being discussed. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Erikeltic/sandbox Erikeltic (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted, reposted, posted again, and then posted with a deadline. I waited 2 days past the deadline and nobody objected to the changes. Check out James T. Kirk and let me know what you think. Erikeltic (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one day I will learn to read.

Thanks for that! Geoff B (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Grief porn

I left a cmt on the nom page. Given the time constraint, if you can't meet my request, no problem; I'm only asking. You have a fine page on a sorry manifestation. Nice work. Ceoil (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Grief porn

On June 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grief porn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 03:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

W00t! - Arcayne () 04:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cameron (Terminator)

Hello,

I'd like to point some things out about my edits to Cameron (Terminator) to explain why I made them. Firstly, about the second paragraph in the lead, I've noticed that the first sentence is grammatically awkward, as the dependent clause seems to suggest that the sentence's subject is the character, rather than the last name, which, in the independent clause, the last name is revealed to be. Secondly, I placed the paragraph third because it makes mention of John Connor, but, with the current organization, an explanation of who he is does not come until later. Third, because there is no citation to confirm that the last name Baum is an intentional allusion, it may be better to simply point out that the names are the same.

I'll leave the lead the way it is now, but, if, after reading this, your mind has changed at all, please let me know so that I can change it back.

Thank you, The no erz (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on T-1000. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)