User talk:Signpostmarv/Archive

Welcome!
Hi, Marv...welcome to the club. In order for an article to be an article, it has to have some content beyond a basic outline that's there in hopes someone will fill in the blanks. Hope this helps. - Lucky 6.9 23:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

SL Related Articles
Hi,

Thanx for the info. Having trouble there. What sould I do? to maintain the article? Also, how do you add / remove the templates at the top of pages?

thanx

the previous unsigned comment was made by User:Msbjustice


 * See User_talk:Msbjustice

Second Life Lawsuit : Bragg v. Linden, et al
You added back the prod tag to Second Life Lawsuit : Bragg v. Linden, et al after User:Msbjustice (talk • contribs) removed. You shouldn't do that. The next step is usually WP:AFD (a discussion is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Life Lawsuit : Bragg v. Linden, et al, but the article might be speedily deleted anyway as db-spam. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. Good to know what to do in future. Thanks for letting me know :-) Signpostmarv 17:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Spam is currently Public Enemy Number Two (just after adding crap to Biographies of Living People), so we are all encouraged to slap db-spam on any blatant advertising we find, which includes efforts like Msbjustice's attempts to get publicity for a lawsuit. Good news really. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What about the revert of User:Msbjustice's edit to User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary in relation to my adding back into Second Life Lawsuit : Bragg v. Linden, et al ? Signpostmarv 18:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly what you said in your edit summary: he has no business changing that so you can revert it, no problem. He can legitimately remove the prod tag, but not the afd1 or db-spam ones. As Mr Connolly says, dispute resolution includes some ideas on how to deal with this, but since User:Msbjustice (talk • contribs) has only one interest here - adding his spam - I wouldn't worry too much. The articles he created will certainly be deleted, and the best way to deal with him adding his stuff to the Second Life article is to make sure that other interested editors are aware of it, and will deal with it. Editors who are only interested in pushing their point of view (usually) soon get bored if they can't get their way. There's no reason why the case shouldn't be mentioned, but a line or two is more than enough as we shouldn't give undue weight to minor matters, and it says so at the non-negotiable Neutral point of view policy page. Hope this helps, and don't let the block worry you, most editors get blocked sooner or later. Again, all the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on October 8 2006 to Second Life

 * Ah. While I am relatively familiar with editing wikipedia articles, I am not familiar with how to handle the situation with User:Msbjustice. Time to chill for me :-) Signpostmarv 18:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You may wish to read WP:DR if the problems persist William M. Connolley 19:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * With that attitude you're half-way there :-) Edit a few other articles then come back. Try and discuss on the talkpage and see what other contributers to the same article have to say. If no consensus can be reached then there are a number of dispute resolution methods (as WMC just beat me to saying). Agathoclea 19:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I wil be option for step 2 :-) Signpostmarv 19:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a question. If I'm taking step 2, what am I meant to do about other factually incorrect edits that other people make on the article ? e.g. the revert of my spelling correction to User:Msbjustice's mis-spelling/typo of Bestiality, and the comments about stipends (anyone who used to get a stippend still gets one). Signpostmarv 01:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct spellings errors in just one edit with nothing else. If they revert that, then you have a fair case against them... but always stick to 3RR William M. Connolley 08:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a shame the MediaWiki software doesn't throw up a warning: It seems you may be about to violate WP:3RR, if you think you are likely to be violating WP:3RR, please read WP:DR as an alternative to being blocked. Signpostmarv 13:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You have discovered the reason for admin intervention: discovering what exactly is a revert is tricky. This is where the discretion comes in William M. Connolley 13:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * heh. People are generally more intelligent than computers :-) Signpostmarv 13:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Rear Admiral Albert Calavicci
I've reverted the edits you and Ford Prefect 2 have made to Rear Admiral Albert Calavicci, as redirects should not be deleted simply because no articles link to them. Please see When should we delete a redirect? for further details. Robwingfield (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. Learn something new every day :-) Signpostmarv 02:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)