User talk:Littlepils

 Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Figureskatingfan, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png|23px]]  The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * [[Image:Crystal package utilities.png|23px]]  How to edit a page
 * [[Image:Crystal khelpcenter.png|23px]]  Help pages
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ktip.png|23px]]  Tutorial
 * [[Image:Crystal Clear app ksokoban.png|23px|]]  How to write a great article
 * [[Image:Crystal_Clear_app_kedit.png|23px]]  Manual of Style
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps konquest.png|23px]]  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also think about creating an account, which will make it easier for you to track your own edits. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my User talk:Figureskatingfan, or type  here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin trivia
I didn't say it was irreverent, I said it was irrelevant. And it is. Just because something is mentioned in a news story does not make it necessary to include it in an article. See WP:RECENTISM and especially WP:TRIVIA, which discourage this sort of thing. Coemgenus 12:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's still a case of you're being way too subjective. There are many, many instances on the Sarah Palin page which could be construed as irrelevant from several points of view. I even suggested a place be made for this type of information in my edit, so it wasn't as though it was thrown recklessly into the article.

January 2013
Your recent editing history at Migraine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 00:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
 * I would recommend you revert yourself and get consensus. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

www.meeja.com.au
Hi Littlepils, I see by your edit history that you are a fan of the site "www.meeja.com.au". You need to know that this site is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards for general news information, and so you should stop adding references citing it to Wikipedia articles. Sources need to have a reputation for fact-checking. Meeja is not a news source, but rather it is a news-mockery site with anonymous contributors, and appears to be either associated with or run by a fan of the news-mockery site Fark. See WP:RS for basic information about Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing. It is possible that sometimes Meeja posts verifiable information published by other, reliable sources; in those cases, you would need to find and cite the referenced reliable source, and not Meeja. Maybe you didn't know this, but to be clear: Per WP:BURDEN, which is Wikipedia policy, it is up to you to find and cite a reliable source. Adhering to these policies will help stop your edits from getting reverted so often, and will make editing Wikipedia much more satisfying for you. Hope this clears things up! Happy editing... 04:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Migraine
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Migraine. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)