Marvixo
|
|
Hi Marvixo!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there! This message was delivered by Sam Sailor Talk! 20:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC) |
Re: Your message edit
Re: your message: The better question is why you felt it was necessary to restore this edit. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Looked like an edit dispute / one saying "Education", the other wanting to say "Education is necessary". I tried to take a middle ground or the like. Marvixo (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't an edit dispute. AddWittyNameHere's edit summary on her revert explained why she made the reversal and she is correct. Commentary in the section titles is not appropriate. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Category:RTT edit
This category is being used for a specific project. Please do not copy and paste it into articles such as you did here [1]. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why did you re add it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Because I haven't got a single clue why some editor took it out. Marvixo (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do you know what the category is being used for? If not why do you keep adding it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, RTT full is the correct one. Marvixo (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- And what is that category used for exactly? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, RTT full is the correct one. Marvixo (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do you know what the category is being used for? If not why do you keep adding it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Because I haven't got a single clue why some editor took it out. Marvixo (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why did you re add it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
May 2016 edit
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Marvixo. I notice you are Wikipedia:Page-move warring with Doc James and now have reverted in Timeline of Cholera. Is there a way we could guide you to more constructive editing? Sam Sailor Talk! 20:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Move is 
Done. If there is any area of interest I could help you get started in, please let me know. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Happy editing. Sam Sailor Talk! 20:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC) (please 
mention me on reply)
- I've just noticed, thanks for all your encouragement Sam Sailor. Sure I'll pick up the good habits real soon! Marvixo (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, no worries. There are so many rules here, that sometimes ones own common sense does not match them. :) The rules are however fully understandable, when you get to know them. Er du norsk? Sam Sailor Talk! 20:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've just noticed, thanks for all your encouragement Sam Sailor. Sure I'll pick up the good habits real soon! Marvixo (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Blocked edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Nakon 20:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Fields of the Nephilim edit
Marvixo - Hi. regarding this edit on the FoTN page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fields_of_the_Nephilim&oldid=720421970 - what exactly are you trying to say? It mentions in the previous paragraph that Situation Two is an imprint of Beggars Banquet. In 1987, Dawnrazor was released on Situation Two, so what is the '....spin-off Beggars Banquet....' you have talked about? Not questioning the edit, just how it reads.
Did you enjoy Eurovision? Best wishes. The joy of all things (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Good point, I was trying to push this -1991 period further away from "early years" and I felt it needed to be rewritten a bit. Not essential so I reverted. Eurovision. Well, I enjoyed myself except for getting blocked for silly editing while drunk! Had half a litre of brandy given to me by a pal. By the time of the voting I couldn't make sense of anything because my short-term memory was tripping like a faulty fusebox and that went on until my eyes shut until 0325 when I awoke and made out that I was "BLOCKED!". The show was poor and everyone sung in English which I disagree with, they should use their own languages, more authentic, more cultural, after all, they are there to represent their nations. That's my opinion but I am not the 7 billion to watch it!! Marvixo (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ahh - you didn't have to change it, but I am glad you are comfortable to do so in the interests of the page. 7 Billion? Is everyone on the planet watching? Well, the Russians won't be watching anymore...... I've never understood how Russia and Israel etc can enter a Eurovision contest anyway. The joy of all things (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Blocked edit
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Comments: using the account Correct Locations Matter