User talk:RTS

More about me later.

Welcome

Hello, RTS! Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this (~~~~); they will expand into your name and the date. You should always sign talk pages, but not articles. If you have any questions, please see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! AnnH ♫ 17:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please don't start your Wikipedian life by making big changes without consensus, and by reverting. Please also be very careful not to revert more than three times within any twenty-four hour period, or you may be blocked from editing. And partial reverts also count, so if you re-introduce some material that was previously there, it counts as a revert. They don't have to be identical versions. Therefore, you have already reverted three times in the last half hour. Please take a moment to read WP:3RR. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 17:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity

I think you need to back away from this article for a little bit. Take some time to think about how this could be presented well, and please review WP:NPOV. I know its difficult when an article contains a point of view you feel very strongly against, but edit wars are not good for anyone. The article would be much better served by presenting multiple theories instead of attempting to use undermining language. joshbuddy^talk 18:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massive WP:3RR violation

Hi RTS, I warned you about the 3RR rule when I was sending you my welcome message. I explained also that partial reverts also count. Your first edit was a partial revert, as you restored some of the stuff that Giovanni tried to insert without consensus. Although even if there is consensus, you can still be blocked if you revert a fourth time. Even if you think the edit you're reverting is a bad one, you can be blocked. The guideline is that if it really needs to be reverted, someone else will probably do it. If nobody else does it, then it can't have been necessary. The only reverts that don't count as 3RR reverts are the reverts of pure vandalism – e.g. the changing of an image of the Pope to one from Star Wars, or the insertion of obscenities into an article. Your second, third, and fourth edits were also reverts or partial reverts, as you just made minor changes to what you had had, and then inserted your version again, without waiting for consensus. (Though I point out again, that even with consensus, you mustn't break that rule or you'll be blocked. If there really is consensus for your version, and you've reverted three times already, someone else will insert it.) When I reverted your fourth revert, I reminded you in the edit summary that this was your fourth, so that you would be fully aware. You went ahead straightaway with a fifth. Yes, that was also a revert, as you undid something that Str1977 had done, even though it wasn't connected to your previous reverts. Then, when Tom harrison reverted you, you made a sixth. You have now made a seventh. I have a policy of NOT reporting 3RR violations when I think it's possible that someone has accidentally slipped into a fourth revert through losing count. I also don't like to bite newcomers. In fact, when I started writing this message, I had decided not to report your fifth revert, even though I had warned you, as you were new. Seeing that you have made seven, I must tell you that I do intend to report it. AnnH ♫ 18:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not see your message here to me until just now. Somehow Im not surprised that you would move to block me from editing. Its a shame that you couldnt' have use the talk pages to defend the blind revert to your friends version (Str1977). I see my changes as a compromise that has consensus. I'm sure that when other editors look it over they will agree that my changes represent a reasonable synthesis and improvement for NPOV language. But, report away. I don't edit a lot myself, although I do enjoy reading articles here, and infact, I often learn more about a subject by reading the debates on the talk page and looking at earlier versions which often times are better than current versions. RTS 19:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

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. Alai 19:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

friendly world of advice

Welcome and thank for your intelligent contributions. I liked what you did with my version. But, as you will see, its too NPOV for POV pushers. hehe But, what I'd like to advise you of is to please follow the rules, or else they will use that as a club at every chance they get to bias others against you, painting you as a bad, distruptive editor for month down the road even if you only made this one mistake. Its probably too late now. I know because that is what happened to me, and they are STILL reporting these stories at every chance they get with the effect of creating a very negative immage of myself. Even, though, after my first block, I never violated the 3RR again. My advise, friend, is to start over with a new account and follow the rules religiously (no pun intended!). Giovanni33 09:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another piece of advice I'd offer is to try to avoid editing other people's comments on Talk pages. In this edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity&diff=next&oldid=42669334#The_History_section, it looked at first as though you were adding a comment by Giovani33 and your own comment all at once. I had to really hunt to figure out that you were copying his comment from elsewhere in the page because you thought it was relevant at that point in the thread. While I now understand what was happening, at first glance it looked suspicious. So, for the sake of appearances at least, try to avoid that sort of thing; quote someone else if you need to, but don't copy and paste so it looks like they were responding to one comment when in fact they were responding to something else. Thanks, and I look forward to working with you. Wesley 18:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]