Jump to content

User talk:FluffyPug: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Porcelain. (TW)
FluffyPug (talk | contribs)
Removed page vandalism created by sockpuppet account "Theroadislong"/ColdSeason. Too tired to bother with asking mods to ban the vandal YET. Might do it in the morning.
Line 20: Line 20:


<font face="century gothic"><b>[[user:Alphathon|<font color="#550000">Alphathon</font>]]</b><sup><small>TM</small></sup> <small><b>([[ user talk:Alphathon|<font color="#550000">talk</font>]])</b></small></font> 18:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
<font face="century gothic"><b>[[user:Alphathon|<font color="#550000">Alphathon</font>]]</b><sup><small>TM</small></sup> <small><b>([[ user talk:Alphathon|<font color="#550000">talk</font>]])</b></small></font> 18:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

== March 2014 ==
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:Porcelain]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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 [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|BRD]] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 18:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:27, 27 March 2014

Welcome!

Hello, FluffyPug, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FluffyPug. You have new messages at Outback the koala's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IP user 68.173.229.242

I honestly don't know what was going on with that, but judging by the use of formatting previously, I think it's fairly safe to say that he isn't trying to pretend to be me (anyone who understands formatting and the history page would probably be more clever than that...like deleting my sig for one thing). My best guess is he starts his posts by adding his sig (so as to not forget to add it maybe) then writes whatever he has to say before it, but on the first occasion accidentally submitted the edit before writing his post (I've done that a few times myself - it's not uncommon). Why he didn't sign his other post I don't know (forgot to?).

Regardless, it wouldn't make sense to pretend that my post was his - it specifically talks about him from the perspective of a 3rd party and, while it does defend him, became a little redundant when he added his post. That, and the posts don't fit well together at all - his is obviously a reply to an accusation (or whatever you want to call it) while mine is a comment on it.

As far as I'm concerned it is far more likely that he's simply not very good at this :P (and/or makes a lot of mistakes).

AlphathonTM (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]