This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Emokid200618(talk | contribs) at 21:40, 12 April 2007(←Created page with '==Final Fantasy Versus XIII== Please stop adding speculative information to the Final Fantasy Versus XIII article. Jump Festa '06 is soon and then if they show a ne...'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:40, 12 April 2007 by Emokid200618(talk | contribs)(←Created page with '==Final Fantasy Versus XIII== Please stop adding speculative information to the Final Fantasy Versus XIII article. Jump Festa '06 is soon and then if they show a ne...')
Please stop adding speculative information to the Final Fantasy Versus XIII article. Jump Festa '06 is soon and then if they show a new trailer, that information will be added. Thank you. --EvilReborn | talk
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Final Fantasy XIII. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. AuburnPilottalk 01:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Repeated Vandalism.
The following things you have done recently are vandalism:
-Repeatedly adding unsourced speculation to Final Fantasy Versus XIII
-Repeatedly adding unsourced speculation to Final Fantasy XIII despite the discussion on the talk page.
-Ignoring the Three Reverts rule in these above two cases.
-Adding offensive remarks to George W. Bush.
-Adding a plethora of games to Final Fantasy Series despite the note telling editors not to (which you also removed.)
-Blanking your own talk page.
-Continuing to add the same unsourced speculation to Final Fantasy XIII despite the talk page consensus and the warnings on your talk page.
In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Also, new comments go at the bottom of a talk page, rather than the top. This keeps discussions in order. Thanks, and if you ever have any questions, you can contact me anytime. AuburnPilottalk03:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
Add that line again and you will break 3RR. You are being pointlessly redundant for no reason. If he can copy the weapons of others, then it stands to reason he can copy the weapon of the person you keep mentioning. There is no reason to say it. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you try to play the waiting game and dance on the edge of 3RR, you'll easily be caught. Such behavior is very easy to deal with. A single report on WP:ANI would get you blocked very quickly. You need to stop now and not continue, as the sum total of the majority of your actions thus far do not bode well for you. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you were last blocked under the three revert rule, did you read it? If you had, you would have read that:
The three revert rule "does not grant users any right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique, it is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence". Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others...reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context...Wikipedians take a dim view of people attempting to wikilawyer or game the system"
To put it simply, the three revert rule does not allow you to revert three times every 24 hours. Comments such as this [2] blatantly show that a. you've not learnt that this is an important policy and b. that you're attempting to "game the system". The three revert rule and blocks for it are intended to explain to you that we take this seriously and that we believe that constant reversions are both harmful to Wikipedia and harmful to your cause.
Please come back in 72 hours time as an editor who is prepared to discuss changes on talk pages and work within the reasonable parameters of Wikipedia. --Robdurbar12:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Annoyance
It was a general statement. Whoever's annoying you, I'm sorry to say, is probably in the right. You don't edit in many places and the few you do are consistently undone. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
Snapper changed it and I agree with it. That's two to one of you. You're welcome to discuss it if you want it changed back, but that happens after, not before. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Also, new comments go at the bottom of a talk page, rather than the top. This keeps discussions in order. Thanks, and if you ever have any questions, you can contact me anytime. AuburnPilottalk 03:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
