Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 3primetime3. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Ah, thanks for telling me. I see this often on the game wikis that I manage. I wouldn't call it vandalism because it's a mistake. I did before I checked it out your trustworthy profile :) 3primetime3 (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for the notification! I've only joined to catch the possible vandalism on Wikipedia that the admins or ClueBot does not detect :). Hope to continue seeing you around! 3primetime3 (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, I am writing to you because of this edit you performed; don't worry, you did nothing wrong.
Commonly when we are nominating an article for speedy deletion, we use a specific template that indicated a reason for deletion from this page (WP:CSD); this categorizes it and helps explain to admins better. For example, I corrected your edit that I referred to above with this edit. It's okay if you don't get all of this (it took me a while when I was starting up, too), if you need further clarification, don't hesitate to reply below this message!
Ah, thanks for telling me. Things do work differently here :). This is something I can learn quickly. The page, though, apparently turns out to be legit. Considering that my name is Austin IRL, that was a weird page name for me :P.
You need to understand that with this edit you reinstated an edit made by a block evading sock (see WP:SOCK). Additionally, you made the edit through article protection (see WP:PP). As an autoconfirmed editor you are permitted to edit protected pages but one should exercise caution when doing so. Please be more careful. I'll watchlist this page in the event you have any questions. Tiderolls18:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. I'm here to revert "vandalism" edits that take out a bunch of text that ClueBot doesn't see. I thought that this was another case of that. Recently, I've been slipping and making bad mistakes with my undos. A few days ago, I happened to undo Gilliam's edits when I meant to undo a blank-out from an anon. Yikes! Trying to redeem myself :P. Anyways, didn't know that I was going to restore a bad edit. Sorry :(. I'll put more thought into my actions every time I press "undo". If I have any questions, I'll make sure to contact you! Again, thanks for telling me. 3primetime3 (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rainforest Cafe may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
[[File:Rainforest-cafe-auburn-hills-michigan.jpg|thumb|A neon-sign welcomes visitors to a Rainforest
Yes bot, your catch was right. I thought that when links were added to the page, there were extra brackets added to the page. Thanks for catching that :) 3primetime3 (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User talk namespace
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Curtis Jerrells: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. TJH2018talk01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thanks for the page! I'll take a deeper look into this :) However, I thought only admins could use these templates right? They seem to be about blocking, and I'm not the type to pretend to be an admin here :P. 3primetime3 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I have no idea what happened here at all!
I tried to add an IP if you scroll down but it seems one cannot change the "header part" in a filing. any way thanks for teh courteous revert.
--Wuerzele (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm forced to vandalize the Abu Sayyaf article cause they beheaded my friend Bernard last year and they will not be forgiven for what they done to him
175.137.70.225 (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for your loss, but the Wikipedia is not the place to take out your anger. These edits are not helping the page. The Wikipedia tries to stay as objective as possible. Please stop engaging in the edit war. Thanks! 3primetime3 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, Gilliam finally came through XD. BTW, my Twinkle disappeared, and I can no longer revert edits. It seems to be enabled though :(. 3primetime3 (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aw thank you so much Cool Guy! My first and precious barnstar :). Nice to know that my close watch on the "recent changes" pages is appreciated XD. 3primetime3 (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I appreciate it. I'll message you if more problems arise, just like that massive edit warring...two minutes ago XD. 3primetime3 (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Have anymore questions, feel free to contact me, and I will help you out as best as I can with my limited knowledge XD. 3primetime3 (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very Sure
My Tens Gone is innocent. Got hacked by some immature adults. We caught them and changed the password. I made this new nick to try and delete it before the whole IP address went down completely. Sorry if I did it the wrong way. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 541 He Is Weird (talk • contribs) 04:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me; I hate it when things like that happen! :/ I hope you can edit here in peace in the future. Looking forward to working with you! 3primetime3 (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, no worries. I saw that the article stated that it was of Yugoslav descent. I've recently seen some vandalism with the word "Serbian," and I thought that this was another case. Also, with the misspelling in the category (which is now taken care of), I reverted. Thanks for catching. Don't let my mistakes get in the way of contributing to Wikipedia! 3primetime3 (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you very much Gilliam! I know that I'll be able to do well with the rollback position. I'm glad that you have trust in me :). Looking forward to continue editing with you in the future! 3primetime3 (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I witnessed your defense of the WP:Sandbox yesterday. A couple of small suggestions. Post a final warning on the WP:Vandal account. Then involve WP:AIV early; these socks come back day after day; it is whack-a-mole. And you can request page protection (I did that for your talk page, too. I just went through this with IPs in the same scenario at the sandbox, and they were attacking anything connected to my user name, including archives and sandboxes). The attacker claims to have access to hundreds of IPs. Keep up the good work. 7&6=thirteen (☎)14:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are all used by proxies, whose IPs change periodically. That was exhausting (and disgusting) work! Hopefully it's over now. My talk page will be protected until the 19th (thank you to User:Malcolmxl5 and Bongwarrior for helping out). 3primetime3 (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL I did XD. And first day on the job I have to say :3. Just wanted to warn admins about automatically blocking proxies though. Occasionally I see this happen. I myself do use a proxy for editing. On some random periods of time, my account and I are blocked for three years - probably due to some other vandals in the area. Just wanted to alert you that not all proxies are bad, at least I hope :P. Thanks. 3primetime3 (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You were briefly moved to articlespace
I put your user & talk pages where they belonged and adding move-protection to them. Sorry you're having to deal with whoever is behind this. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉20:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me. I was undoing revisions when I found the problem. However, the current version and past version had the same mistake, that's all :)
I'm just saying; by removing the warning message, you acknowledge that you have read the warning message and accepted it. You don't just go and undo the edit and calling it "trolling." 3primetime3 (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Level 3 edit warring message - harassing user on their own talk page
Your recent editing history at User_talk:70.124.133.228 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 are 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.
70.124.133.228 (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You probably don't understand the three-revert rule. This is bypassed if the user is disruptive or is obvious vandalism. Nice try. 3primetime3 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great; still don't think I have done anything wrong. You continue to blank your warnings without changing your behavior. Again, blanking your warnings means that you understand why they were left, not because you undo them, calling the people you left them trolls. 3primetime3 (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Malcolmxl5: The reason I'm undoing them is only because he continues his behavior. Also, he undos edits, calling them "trolls." I would stop if he mentions in an edit summary that he understands and won't do it in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3primetime3 (talk • contribs)
@Only: As I've mentioned with the user, the reason I'm undoing them is only because he continues his behavior. Other users have added back the messages too (check below the history). Also, he undos edits, calling them "trolls." If I really am in the wrong here, I will ask Gilliam to remove my rights and leave. Don't mean to be an inconvenience here. 3primetime3 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are in the wrong here, 3primetime3, but that's no reason to leave. Simply learn from your mistakes as we all have. Tiderolls01:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful with this, 3primetime3. ...228 is an experienced ip-hopper, presently on his 23rd ip. He has already provoked two other users into getting blocked, and skated away untouched. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more bit of unsolicited advice, 3primetime3. Slow your pace a smidge and ask questions. Thanks for your contributions. Tiderolls12:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tide rolls: I've been editing slower now. While I was gone, I read upon a few Wikipedia rules, and I'll make sure I don't violate them. I'm attempting to get back on my feet again, and I think it's going well. Thanks for the advice. 3primetime3 (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tahc: - If you notice, I'm going through some hard times on Wikipedia and am trying to resolve issues. This has caused me to be rather inactive the last few days. I'll get these done soon, but I hope you understand. You can see all of that crap above happen recently. :( 3primetime3 (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hang in there, dude; you'll get the hang of it eventually. BTW, your friend ...228 just got blocked again for evading a previous block. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the letting me know. Just take care of yourself, 3primetime3. My request can wait until whenever you are doing better. tahcchat14:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tahc: I'm glad you understand and still trust me with your project. I really damaged my reputation there, and I need to redeem myself. Thanks. They're done now. :) 3primetime3 (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "Landmarks" section, it contents most of cultural and heritage content subjects.
Thats the addition to "Culture" section. --NY89 (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 3primetime3. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Infant Jesus Shrine Tada, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to geographical locations. Thank you. Passengerpigeon (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Passengerpigeon: Don't worry about contesting, I can easily withdraw it. I might have put up the tag a little too fast. It just seemed very promotional to me, and I have trouble remember which db-a# should use. I went from db-a1, on and I thought that a7 was the closest I ran into. :). Happy editing! 3primetime3 (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tahc: Done for both :). I've managed to do them, but my computer somehow gave a slight malfunction today that caused my trick to edit quickly to not work for 400-301 BC. It should be fine now though. I have one question, I've noticed that you carefully told me not to redirect 500-401 BC to 5th century, and that's because it was redirected to 500s BC. And now I noticed, pages like 510s BC and 550s BC exist on the wiki too. What do you plan on doing with those pages? 3primetime3 (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of English words of Spanish origin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pinto. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
this player has scored nine goals in the league for Sevilla FC, not 10. This player has just won his third UEFA Europa League trophy. Instead of undoing me, maybe you could join efforts and help clean up the sick garbage vandalism to which the article has been subjected for the last 20 minutes or so? Thanks.
@Be Quiet AL: I didn't undo your edits. My purpose of that was on undoing vandalism by jkjkjkjk. All I did was restore the version right before jkjkjk made his edits. I kept trying, but continuously received an edit conflict. The sick garbage vandalism, I believe, should have been undone by the restoration. 3primetime3 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, happens to the best, no worries, thanks for helping out. Oh, and the vandalism continues, these idiots are sore losers as I have never seen... --Be Quiet AL (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Be Quiet AL: I almost reverted it, but it seems that ClueBot undid the vandalism faster than me (like usual). I'll continue watching over the page if ClueBot doesn't fix up things next time :). Stay awesome, and happy editing! 3primetime3 (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Be Quiet AL: At least the wave of vandalism will stop for now. And thanks for the complement! Back to you! XD I'm trying to redeem myself after some nasty situation. Any encouragement helps! I'm glad I'm doing things right.3primetime3 (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting my mistake. I was in the process of rereverting it when you caught it for me. Thanks and apologies for my mistake. reddogsix (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Reddogsix: No problem. I see you're a trustworthy user around here and you know how to get around on Wikipedia :). That's why I knew I didn't have to leave a warning message on your page - it was pretty obvious that it was an accidental deletion. Thanks for the notification, and happy editing! Stay awesome. 3primetime3 (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Xincheng, Hualien
I have posted this on the discussion page of the article but I've been ignored.
You mentioned because there's a need for consistency... well then we should just rename and leave as the government wants it to be. The station might as well be called Xincheng but the township name is Sin Chen unless they decide to rename it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asoksevil (talk • contribs) 04:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Asoksevil: Consider moving the page by using this link, especially if you are going to change a few names out of all of them. If you are ignored within a few days (which I see you have been), use WP:Bold as the reason you are making the page. Even if people disagree with the change afterwards, you are on the right because people did not see your request. That can be easily reverted. Happy editing, and stay awesome :) 3primetime3 (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting talk pages without addressing the issue raised
I am sorry if I am doing this wrong; I am trying to talk to you about the concern of plagiarism you have with my references to the Humanity Party in the V for Vendetta article. There is no plagiarism; they are my own words, without regard to any other words that another may have used. I am not behind the Humanity Party; I just believe in its tenets and effort to eliminate world poverty and its right to use Anonymous and the mask in its efforts to describe its tenets. The Humanity Party has hundreds of thousands who have seen its video as posted by Anonymous Official, which I am not affiliated with. There are over 7,000 responses to the video. I am seeking to state why it has a right to use Anonymous and the mask. I hope you will reconsider your deletions and reinstate my paragraphs. Thank you for your reconsideration. ssevdor. (Again, sorry, if I put this in the wrong place; I couldn't figure out how to talk to you, and you requested a discussion before I tried to undo your deletion. I thought I had created a separate discussion here, but I didn't see it show up after I had written and attempted to post it. Thanks again.
The point of article talk pages is to discuss ambiguities and errors etc. I do not take kindly to you deleting my request for clarity without first addressing the issue.
93.155.220.96 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't slander me. User:GoneIn60 mentions the same thing. "Months are described in prose. This is disruptive and needs to be in understandable English. I suggest you use a different translator." 3primetime3 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was reverted the first time, because it sounded like gibberish, hence the "What?" comment in the edit summary. Instead of making your comments clear the second time around, you simply restored your previous edit. From your response above, it is clear you are capable of speaking English or at least capable of finding a good translation. So why the odd phrasing in both edits? Disruptive gibberish will be removed on sight EVERY time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@21kidbullet: Keep going on with your work. I thought I saw something different that didn't adhere to the manual of style each time I restarted it, but I can see it's a work on progress :). I'm won't bother you next time! Stay awesome, and happy editing! 3primetime3 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Rknopfel407: Then why did you add '''hub''' next to a location after your legitimate edit. That definitely looked like an editing test. I restored your first edit, but I really don't understand your second. 3primetime3 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Humanity Party
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address why I have reverted to my original paragraphs after you deleted it. Your stated reason is that it seems like plagiarism. There is no plagiarism. I wrote the paragraphs in my own words without regard to any other material. The points are well thought-out and well intended. I am not behind the Humanity Party; I merely support its efforts and its right to use the Anonymous identity and the mask. I would appreciate it if you would reconsider and restore the page to the way I had written it, subject to any changes you feel appropriate. They are my words alone. The only help I could use would be from someone such as yourself who could properly format the citations into Wikipedia footnotes. I lack the expertise. I believe that the points and references I made to those who oppose the humanity party are valid. I mentioned that hundreds of thousands of views of the principle video of the Humanity Party have occurred, and thousands (more than 7,000) of comments have been made under the video, posted by Anonymous Official, which I am not associated with in any way. Thank you for your reconsideration. ssevdor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssevdor (talk • contribs) 03:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssevdor: I would first like to thank you for creating an account and joining us! Creating an account is a big step XD. I would also like to thank you for addressing my message in the edit summary. :)
Your additional paragraphs, especially the long quote towards the end signify that this looks a lot like original research. Additionally, the long block quote seems unencyclopedic, and it looks a lot like plagiarism or original research. I like the sources that you included (though YouTube should not be cited as a source). The reason I reverted it, of course with good faith, (edits like these are NEVER meant for vandalism) was because it did not adhere to the quotations section of the Manual of style. Note that that standardized manual states that "quote farming" must be taken with a grain of salt because they can end up becoming copyright infringements. "Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing."
I can restore your edit; I'll also fix up some formatting problems using the basic ref tags :). Perhaps you could limit the amounts of quotes so it doesn't look too much like original research. Keep editing, and stay awesome! 3primetime3 (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssevdor: I would like to thank you again. I have restored the edit and hopefully made it look better by citing the sources correctly. I'm more than happy to restore it; I would still recommend to cut down the quote farming because I feel the quotes dominate the article here. If you have any more questions; feel FREE to ask me, and I'll try my best to help you! 3primetime3 (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are amazingly kind; thank you so much! I will now tighten things up and hope to make it even better, that you may understand how much I appreciate what you have done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssevdor (talk • contribs) 05:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think it is relevant to mention the involvement with the nazis. It is one the two things the person is famous for. from the linked wiki article
"to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left a troubled legacy"
this is his oath
'I swear by God this holy oath, that I will obey the leader of the German State and people, Adolph Hitler, as commander of the German Armed Forces, in the fight for freedom of India, in which fight the leader is Subhas Chandra Bose, and that as a brave soldier, I am willing to lay down my life for this oath.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.129.87 (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The actual page itself mentions nothing about Nazism, so I see no reason to leave it there, especially if it was uncited by a reliable source. If you can provide a reliable source, of course that can be left there! I see that another user does agree with me on this point based on the edit history for that page. :) 3primetime3 (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consider reading about this article before going off to slander users. Any comment that suggests that it is not a neutral point of view should be removed. This includes to "facts" being changed to "interesting". 3primetime3 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I DON"T CARE THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY EDIT DAMN IT ! I'LL CONTINUE TO ADD THE WORD INTERESTING WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT ! BLOCK ME OR PROTECT THE ARTICLE IF YOU WISH ! BUT I'LL CONTINUE TO INSERT IT! DAMN IT ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.75.221 (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bringing this over to Wikipedia:INCIDENT so administrators can determine the outcome. Reverting the same edit more than three times breaks 3RR, as you've just done. But reverting your edit a fourth time won't get anything solved. I'll bring it over and leave a message about it on your wall. 3primetime3 (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Black Widow
Hi! Actually Black Widow is an expert hand to hand combatant. If it is mentioned in other characters' abilities, it should be mentioned in hers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanmohd2105 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amanmohd2105: While it may be that Black Widow is an expert "hand to hand combatant", your edit mentioning that she is "considered to be one of the best spies in the Marvel Universe" sounds like it is opinion. While I know your edit is in good faith, remember that all articles must be written "without editorial bias". 3primetime3 (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But Black Widow is considered to be one of the best spies along with Nick Fury and this sentence was mentioned in his page. So should I put the sentence in her page or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanmohd2105 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amanmohd2105: Feel free to add it in as long as it sounds unbiased (mentioning that he is the best in all of Marvel Universe). Also including a reliable source will strengthen your edit. 3primetime3 (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll find a reference and then put that best spy line!! Also, can you please add the content to the powers and abilities section(which I added)? This stalker guy reverted it back. He's always changing my edits!! He probably won't do it if you add the content.. Thank you!! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanmohd2105 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amanmohd2105: Are you talking about User:TriiipleThreat? Judging by his user page and contributions, I can predict that he is VERY skilled in this section, and he might not find the edit informative. My reverting his edits will not get anything solved. I pinged him here because it looks like you need more explanation into why your edit was reverted. In either case, it looks like your edits are done in good faith. I would like to thank you for your contributions. 3primetime3 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The section already states that she is an expert martial artist, so also stating that she is hand-to-hand combatant is redundant since this is already implied by the former term.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Your recent editing history 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 are 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. Chase (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
hi,
Ya, I removed some content because it is duplication and not reliable data. some content was already posted below that which is correct data so brought it upwards and removed irrelevant data . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.111.8 (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. Thanks for telling me and taking the time to explain it in a message. In the future, especially if you're removing a content with a legitimate reason, could you please add an edit summary so I don't think it's vandalism? Thank you very much, and happy editing! 3primetime3 (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
The following article is for characters that did exist historically, abraham is a myth that has not been verified, please help.
I have no background in this information and therefore can't help you. I've noticed edit warring between the two of you though. Therefore, if I report you, both of you guys will be blocked for around a day for violating the 3RR rule. I would give this a day or two, calmly ask on the corresponding talk page, or take a look at the situations noticeboard. Thank you for your edits and time! 3primetime3 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've also taken a look at the corresponding sourced page. Because the information was sourced and it seems to be credible I would leave it for now. If you would like to take the situation further, you may. I would because I may be wrong about this. Thank you again! 3primetime3 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some falafel (or is that "'fel"?) for you!
Sorry to see that while I was otherwise occupied, you got to deal with the "'go 'za"/"'chos" vandal today when he discovered temporary protection on those pages had expired... Thanks for rising to the challenge! Take care! Julietdeltalima(talk)23:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Julietdeltalima: Awww...thank you very much! Your falafel was delicious! I've never had one before :). I wonder what you put in it for it to taste like that.
If you've seen that I've made a mistake, feel free to fix it yourself :). Just leave a reasoning in the edit summary. Thanks! -Primetime (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Renouf edits
You have reverted the introductory paragraphs at [1] to an earlier version which is grossly misleading for two reasons. It fails to point out that Renouf makes no claims to have researched the Holocaust herself: AFAIK she has not written a single word directly about this subject, though as clarified elsewhere in the entry she has become known for defending the legal/civil rights of those who do. Secondly it gives the impression that Renouf is a political activist who has done a bit of modelling work (rather like those countless "reality TV stars" and footballers' girlfriends who describe themselves as models) – whereas in fact she had a decades-long international career as an advertising model and television commercials actress, long before coming to any political notice. Hence I have re-reverted your changes. The user who made the original changes was clearly acting out of political malice, though I'm sure that's not the case with you. I also put in the word "late" before the disambiguation re Lady (Susan) Renouf. This was just because lazy journalists often use Wiki and it would be especially unfortunate for the late Lady Renouf's family if there were any confusion. Thanks. Oafc1990 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is something that shouldn't be discussed. The user does not have to answer the question if you wanted to, and it looks like you're trying to force the answer out of him. Also, changing other's talk pages is not acceptable. -Primetime (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
September 2016
Your recent editing history at Anschluss shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war in association with user account Tarl N. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I no longer revert more than once in a row unless it was blatant vandalism. And based on your edit summaries, you do not abide by the "Neutral point of view" that the article states. One part of your edit says that "It is unlikely that Austrians would have voluntarily agreed to become part of Germany without considerable force and coercive measures applied by the Third Reich." Neutrality means to focus on the information itself and to remove subjectivity from articles. User:Tarl N. has pointed this out during reversions, and you have only responded by saying that the information is correct and threating Tarl by saying that he is "exhibiting editing warring behaviour. Advise if he reverts this edit, he will have exceeded the three reversion limit for this page."
I notice Favonian (an administrator) has taken interest in 103.9.40.129's actions, I'll leave further action in those capable hands. It's now Monday morning in New Zealand, so I suspect our IP is busy at school or work for a while. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 21:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarl N.: - I'm glad of the result :). I'm guessing this warning in my message wall won't count then :D...
So...I guess we're back to our own thing. It's been great associating with you Tarl! Thinking back on this experience, I never would have gotten to know such a great contributing user. I hope to continue seeing you on Wikipedia, and happy editing! -Primetime (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@1097468wikieditor:: Apologies, I know that it's possible to simply find an image on the internet and post it. However, I'm not really informed on Wikipedia's guidelines about images :(. I'm "new" here, and I'm just starting out. I think it's ideal for now to leave it as is. Happy editing! -Primetime (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dude !
Bro you mentioned on your user page that someone lonely can come and chat with you, and yep I am lonely and I want someone to do some PeP talk with me, and it can be you dude, and by the way I am Kain and I am from England, London and nice to meet you, I hope you would like to chat with me because I am very lonely in WP (Wikipedia).I think I will open your "TOP SECRET INFO" too.
Bye and Thank You Dude
Gandalf the Wizard 03:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Gandalf the Wizard: Hello there! I'm from the United States, California to be exact. Nice to meet you! Wikipedia is a very "professional" environment, and things aren't really as friendly as they could be. I totally relate. Nice to meet you :). What's up man? -Primetime (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Friend,
I would like to inform you that Bordoloi Trophy 2016 is NOT being telecast by PRAG news LIVE or recorded, please check your facts prior to removing comments made by people who know what they are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.174.193 (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@203.123.174.193: - Thank you very much for telling me your edit made in good faith. Feel free to restore the edit (and I don't think I undid it the second time). Especially when editing a mainspace page, please do not use all caps in a sentence if there is no abbreviation; I interpret that as vandalism :). Happy editing!! -Primetime (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bro !
I am back dude your bro Kain, well today was looong day of work see ya soon !
@Tahc: Ah okay :). You wrote 902-1000 BC and that threw me off. I just finished it now. :) I reckon that you will redirect List of state leaders in 901 in the future? -Primetime (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Use of Award vs Awards in wikipage on the film Deliverance...
Hey,
I believe the sentence referenced is poorly contructed. When I first read it, I came way with the impression that Deliverance had won three Academy Awards!! When I did some research, I found it had only gotten nominations. For arguments sake, take out the golden globe part of the statement, and it would read "It was a critical sucess, earning three academy awards nominations." The double plural doesn't make sense. Conversely, why then don't you make it "and five golden globes nominations" ?!! The noun is the nominations, the phrase academy award describes the noun-nominations, and shouldn't be pluralized. Thus my edit of award, instead of awards, which would link academy award to the word nominations. So maybe you should be spending some time in your sandbox... AA Pilot16 (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AA Pilot16: Your current edit is much better than the one that you originally "fixed." See here for your old revision. The link ended up broken, and it looked like "[[Academy Award]". I agree with your second fix, but please be careful with your formatting. The revert was legitimate there as I simply saw that the edit broke a link. Happy editing! -Primetime (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I still believe my first edit was fine, I can't help it that "you" can't figure it out. But I'd don't want to make this a pissing match. Why Wikipedia can't make simple editing easy to do is beyond me. I mean all I did was delete an "s", I didn't do anything to the brackets...with linking. Too many rules, syntax, formatting, link protocols, etc. I like Wikipedia very much, I don't like some of the edit police that unfortunately come with the territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AA Pilot16 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AA Pilot16: Don't worry. I don't take offense. And this isn't turning into a thing. I appreciate you trying to reach out about a reversion that you don't agree with. I understand what you mean by "removing the s." The broken link was only an accident (because based on the stored revision, you did remove a bracket) and I know that the edit was made in good faith (I've removed the warning from your wall). Wikipedia does have a lot of coding - and most of the time, I don't even understand it all lol. References...don't even get me started on that.
Suggestion, try out the visual editor if you want to. Go to Special:Preferences and try enabling it. When you edit a page with the visual editor, there is less coding, and perhaps it will be easier. Tell me what you think of it, and happy editing! -Primetime (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 3primetime3. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.
Hi Primetime, how did you learn the piano so well? Did you have a musical talent that you were born with? What is the fastest rhythm you can play for at least 10 seconds? Do you like to pretend that you're playing the piano, even if you're not near it? Also, a generic question, are you male or female (I'm male). I can actually play the pipe organ (though not so well). Sorry for the load of questions — I'm just curious Awesomemeeos (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Awesomemeeos: I guess it was years of practice. I started when I was four, which was kinda a long time ago. I LOVE music. I always practice the piano even when I'm not near it of course. With hard work and years of dedication into the instruments, you could play super fast rhythms for even 10 seconds. However, I do prefer the more lyrical slow pieces as it pertains to my personality haha :).
Ulster Banner
Yes, I am sure about the star on the Ulster Banner. You need only look at the example provided, which is the same as the one used on its main page, to see that it is not two equilateral triangles, but two three-pointed stars. I made this point on the talk page under Definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4216:A200:2922:70D8:AB89:8155 (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Red Sanders
It is 100 percent true he died with a prostitute. See:
"A "witness" at the scene, Ernestine Drake, said she remembered the great coach talking football but not much else. She did say his last words were, "Football is a great game. You should come out this fall and see a few games." This being the fifties, nothing very salacious was published, at least in LA, but insiders were satisfied, and word certainly got around that Red, the old reprobate, wasn't diagramming plays that afternoon.
Not surprisingly reports in the Bay Area cut closer to the bone. Two days later, the San Francisco Examiner went with an AP story which described Mrs. Drake as "a blonde in a downtown hotel room" who had just been "introduced to Sanders a few minutes before by Grimes, 81, the registered occupant of the room." The article continued: "Mrs. Drake, a divorcee, was convicted as a prostitute in nearby Beverly Hills in 1957 and served a jail term. Grimes has a long record of arrests for pandering and served a San Quentin Prison term after one conviction."" http://www.scout.com/college/ucla/story/986553-red-sanders-and-a-paradise-lost
Thank you for your prudent removal of a personal attack made by an anonymous user at Talk:Slender Man stabbing. The attack in question was a pretty blatant violation of our civility policy; the edit you made helped to keep the Wikipedia editing environment just a little more civil. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 3primetime3. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of KQHO-LD, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are the professional musician and the violinist, could you, please take a look at the Oleg Bezuglov article and consider expressing your opinion in discussion on whether it should be deleted or not. It was nominated on suspicion of not passing the WP:MUSICBIO criterion. The discussion is currently dead in the water, and I'm afraid it might be relisted again because of that. Thanks in advance! Fiddler11 05:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidler11 (talk • contribs)
Hey, @Fidler11:, my sincerest apologies; I haven't been on Wikipedia for awhile. I'll make sure to take a look at the page again tomorrow and ping you back on it :). -Primetime (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fidler11:: I think the page is okay and can be kept. If you take a look at the Class&Jazz copyrighted website, it contains a credible source. In addition, the MUSICBIO page mentions that a musician should be noted if the person has "won first, second, or third place in a major music competition," which he has: International Chamber Music Ensemble Competition in New England. I wouldn't worry about the page getting deleted, though it could use a little work. -Primetime (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 3primetime3. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, 3primetime3. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, 3primetime3. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi 3primetime3! I haven't talked to you or seen you around in quite some time... I hope that you're doing well and that life is happy. I just wanted to leave you a message to say hello and let you know that I was thinking about you... Wishing you my very best - ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Oshwah:! So nice to hear from you dude; it definitely has been a while since we last spoke! I've logged in here because actually I thought of you as well and wanted to see how you were doing. How have things been, in life and on Wikipedia? Hopefully well. I remember your administrator nomination position as if it were yesterday. I started my studies as a piano performance major at UCLA last year (plus joined a collegiate community service a cappella group), and that has taken up a lot of my freetime. Therefore, I have been online significantly less and have been practicing a lot more. I log in today to see that Wikipedia has been prospering, and I'm so glad about that.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
