| Revision as of 03:38, 29 December 2014 editWinkelvi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,145 edits this is what being helpful gets you in wikipedia, I guess; no wonder administrators get grumpy← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:07, 29 December 2014 edit undoMsnicki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,358 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Robin Williams. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
| With a subject of this age (played before the birth of the internet, at least in my country), it's virtually impossible to find any reliable newspaper sources for his playing career), but that's OK I understand your views (as I understand the other user/admin that reverted me in said article), no worries --] (]) 02:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC) | With a subject of this age (played before the birth of the internet, at least in my country), it's virtually impossible to find any reliable newspaper sources for his playing career), but that's OK I understand your views (as I understand the other user/admin that reverted me in said article), no worries --] (]) 02:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == December 2014 == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.{{Break}}''I count 9 reverts in 24 hours on that one page.''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 04:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:07, 29 December 2014
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
Wishing the Misplaced Pages community a Merry Christmas and blessed New Year in 2015!
| This is Winkelvi's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Thanks for stopping by!
Here in Misplaced Pages, I go by "Winkelvi". I enjoy patrolling the "Recent changes" page, looking for vandalism by IP addresses. As a reviewer, I'm also often reviewing and then either accepting or rejecting pending changes. While I try to be accurate with the reverts I make and the subsequent warnings I leave on talk pages, I am only human and will make mistakes from time to time. If you're here because of an editing issue or a revert I've made to one or more of your edits and you feel I've made an error, please leave me a civil message on my talk page If you want to talk about article edits, it's really best to do so at the article's talk page. If you do so, and your comments regard changes I've made there, please ping me.
When you leave a message on my talk page and a response from me is appropriate, I will reply to you here, not on your talk page. Having half a conversation on a talk page and going back and forth between pages is unnecessarily confusing and a pain in the ass.
If you're here to whine, complain, or express anger, please go elsewhere. Any whining, complaining, angry posts will be deleted rather than responded to.
 | This user has Asperger's. |
If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me, there is an excellent article/essay on Misplaced Pages editors with Asperger's found here that might help.
Charlize Theron
Hi Winkelvi. I question your reverting of the addition of Sean Penn to the info box on Charlize Theron. The fact that they are dating is included, with a source, in the text of the article. meamemg (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out, meamemg. I didn't realize it was already in the article. That said, the edit looked suspicious as the user only had one edit prior to the Theron edit, there was no edit summary included, and tags for mobile edit and mobile web edit were bot-added to the diff. Additionally, the edit was malformed and placed incorrectly in the info-box. As well, dating doesn't necessarily equate "Partner"; that is typically reserved for those in an established domestic partnership relationship. Unless a reliable reference that supports the two of them being in a domestic partnership can be found, listing them as partners would be inappropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. Thanks for explaining. meamemg (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
José Leal - Reply
Hi there, from Portugal,
it was hard work, which can be consulted and verified in ALL of the external links present in the article. But sure, remove it, I won't reinstate again, I see that, for the time being, it's two against one, I won't go against the grain, only wanted to help.
Happy 2015 --84.90.219.128 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- 84.90.219.128, I take no pleasure in removing honest work done by other editors, however, what you included was without references, and that makes it original research. Please look into the policy on biographies of living persons in order to better understand the importance of reliable references for such articles. Get reliable references to add to and support the content you worked on and put in the article, and there will be no problem with keeping the content in. Hope you understand. And Happy 2015 to you, as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
With a subject of this age (played before the birth of the internet, at least in my country), it's virtually impossible to find any reliable newspaper sources for his playing career), but that's OK I understand your views (as I understand the other user/admin that reverted me in said article), no worries --84.90.219.128 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
December 2014
Your recent editing history at Robin Williams shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I count 9 reverts in 24 hours on that one page. Msnicki (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)