User talk:Pontifexmaximus

Welcome!

Hello, Pontifexmaximus, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language
Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

Happy editing!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mini Mammoth AfD

Would you kindly point out where I diverged from the guidelines? ... discospinster _talk 01:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't listed the article correctly? What have I missed? ... discospinster _talk 01:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Mammoth

Please refer to the comment I left on the talk page. Viridae ^Talk 05:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.Viridae ^Talk 05:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Viridae, I have done no such thing and was about to say the same thing to you. I didn't undo your edits repeatedly. You, on the other hand, repeatedly attempted to delete the edits of other people as they made them. In case you didn't realise, blanking articles is not counted as a bona fide edit. In this case, you would have been the one reprimanded. Just a heads up. Thanks -- Pontifexmaximus 11:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. that was a template warning about the three revert rule 2. adding incorrect information into wikipedia articles is considered vandalsim, that is why I reverted it. Viridae ^Talk 11:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except this issue is being discussed in the arbitration page. Deleting information which is under review is not a legitimate edit and is always reverted. If you continue to do it, it's seen as vandalism and you can be blocked. Please stop doing it. I'd hate to have to use admin powers because that just gets everybody down. -- Pontifexmaximus 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was deleting information that was quite obviously false. An article under AfD can still be edited - in fact, I provided a history link to an older version BEFORE I deleted it. I have already contacted an admin on the matter who backed me up saying I would not be in violation of 3RR if i was reverting vandalism. WP:VAND states that vandalism includes The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Insertion of obviously false information into articles like that which is found in the Mini Mammoth page is therefore vandalism, and by reverting my removal of such material you are yourself a vandal. I will not continue to revert any changes in that article that are not patently false, I do not wish to edit war or have my time taken up with continual reverting. It also looks like it will not make it past the AFD anyway. Viridae ^Talk 14:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you said Arbitration not AfD. I see no evidence of the article being in arbitration so I have to assume you meant AfD. In which case what I said stands - there is no block on editing a page being reviewed for deletion at AfD. Please familiarise yourself with policy before accusing me of vandalism again. Viridae ^Talk 14:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]