User talk:Pawnofwhite

ROTS DVD changes
Where have these changes been confirmed? Source? The Wookieepedian 19:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll let you figure it out. Just go ahead and watch the theatrical release and DVD. These things are well known facts.Pawnofwhite 16:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Myself and The Wookiepedian will keep reverting your changes to the article until you provide a source for these supposed "well known facts" that no one else has heard of. If you continue to edit the article at your leisure without citing your source, and effectively starting an "edit war", you will be reported to the admin. The Filmaker 07:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll edit it back in. If you continue, you will be reported. You've started an edit war. That's fine. I'm not letting you spoil well known facts to save your pride.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The Filmaker 21:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please just provide a source and the information will stay in. Jedi6  -(need help?)  21:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't vandalized the page because I'm adding facts. You are are erasing FACTS. Therefore you are vandalizing this page. Last warning? Take your own advice. I don't care about your pride, and neither should you. I'm not going to taunt you because you're wrong and you don't have to feel insecure. GROW UP.
 * This has nothing to do with my pride, this has to do with the fact that you are adding information that no one else has ever heard, and yet you refuse to cite a source and insist that they are facts. They are not "facts" until you cite your source. Before you mention that say the plot of the movie is not sourced, well most of the facts on this site are obvious, obviously the source of the plot is the movie itself, it doesn't need to be sourced. If you wanted this up on the page, all you had to do was provide a link, either here on your talk page or in the talk page for the article. But you refused, only giving the vague answer of "Do a google search or visit the Star Wars site for proof." both of which I did when this problem first arose, I have found nothing. If you want to cite your source, you have to provide a link to the actual page, or provide sufficient directions. But it's too late, I'm notifying the admin. The Filmaker 23:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I myself am notifying the admin as well. Do NOT vandalize wikipedia! Grow up, kid. Maybe you'll learn after you're blocked.

ROTS DVD Changes Discussion
Please use the talk page to find a consesus with User:The Filmaker instead of engaging in a revert war. Jedi6 -(need help?)  01:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Source
If these changes are there, then give us a specific link that proves this. I have no problem with including this info, but if you can't give a source then we will continue to revert. I have never heard anyone with the theatrical bootleg note these changes, and I hang around the film bootleg community quite a bit. However, there have been many reports validating the scene transition change. The Wookieepedian 01:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, I have no problem reverting vandalism back. Not reverts, back edits, rather. Still, if you vandalism I will edit it. And I had to report your buddy for vandalism all ready. Making threats isn't going to help you learn the truth.
 * Actually both of you reported in the wrong area. Jedi6  -(need help?)  01:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

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 an article to a previous version 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.. Jedi6 -(need help?)  01:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on his behavior, Pawnofwhite seems to be a troll, as, despite his insistance on these changes, he has provided us with no proof whatsoever. If he really believes these changes were made &mdash; and tells us they are confirmed on the official SW site and google, then surely he would provide us a link to prove this. Also note that he has claimed three times in his edit summaries that The Filmaker's and my edits are vandalism, when HE is the one reverting without evidence to back his claims up. Like The Filmaker is doing, I'm not going to revert this guy anymore. I'll just let a third party look at the situation. The Wookieepedian 05:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, an outside source reverted his edits, yet Pawnofwhite still calls it vandalism. The Wookieepedian 00:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

My vandalism
I am not going to reach a consesus in the talk page of the article in question. I don't believe that Pawnofwhite is open for discussion. I have however stopped editing the page and will not until this situation is resolved. The fact is that Pawnofwhite is editing the page with information he claims to be well known facts. Yet I have not heard of them and The Wookieepedian has never heard of them. I've done a number of Google searches and searched through the Official Site for this information and I cannot find any articles or paragraphs that make the same claims. So I started requesting a source in the History section. He ignored me. I come here and see that he is downright dismissive of Wookieepedian. By this point I believe that these claims are simply fabricated or speculated. Especially since he refuses to cite the source. So I believe they are vandalism and have to repeatedly edit them back to there original state. This is not vandalism. I was removing what I believed to be vandalism, and even if I am wrong and it turns out to be correct information, it is still not vandalism because I didn't believe it was true. All I'm asking for his a source. A direct link. That's it. But so far, he has responded with claims that I am vandalizing the page. So I'll ask one more time. Pawnofwhite could you give me a source? If you provide a source I will delete all requests for investigation and apologize. The Filmaker 01:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. . Jedi6  -(need help?)  20:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now blocked you since you have reverted Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith for the fourth time in 24 hours, despite the warning given you just above. When you return to editing, please do not continue revert warring, and instead discuss things on the talk page. Thanks. -Splash talk 00:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocks
You and The Filmaker have reported each other for vandalism. I have blocked both of you until such time as I figure out which one is telling the truth (which shouldn't take long). DS 04:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That didn't take long at all; The Filmaker is unblocked, and you are blocked for a period of one month for wilfully and maliciously putting false information in articles, for being rude, and for reporting other editors as vandals. DS 04:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)