User talk:Urammar

Hello, Urammar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to

]

October 2014

]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 12:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...

I am trying to (move?) change the "Alien (creature in Alien franchise)" title to "Xenomorph (creature in Alien franchise)" to correctly reflect its name. I have no idea how to do this, and the page to request it just keeps yelling at me :)

Thanks in advance! Urammar (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You just need to make a redirect on Xenomorph page. You do not need to make request. I will help you. --220.255.47.5 (talk). Signed at 09:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to do that, and apparently the edit needs to wait for the talk page to reach consensus.

But to be clear, I want to change the title of the article, because its wrong. (If consensus is reached)

Thanks for the reply! Urammar (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Urammar. Just a heads up, but per

]

Uh, thanks. Yeah I was logged out and didnt notice.

Urammar (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Urammar! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 16:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

If you think the article should be moved to a different title,

]

@

McGeddon

:

Please refer me to the standing dispute resolution request you filed. Thank you.

Urammar (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't filed any dispute resolution requests. A simple renaming discussion or RFC would be more productive at this point, I think. --

McGeddon (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@

McGeddon

:

You were instructed to do so in the talk page if you intended to revert. If you maintain your stance, please do so.

In addition, please restore my edit under

wiki guidelines

Further please see

consensus— Preceding unsigned comment added by Urammar (talk • contribs

) 11:26, 31 October 2014‎

Sorry, that's not how it works. (If it was, I could just give the same ultimatum to you!) Getting more input from other editors is definitely the way to go here - I'd recommend either of the two steps above.

McGeddon (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@

McGeddon

:

Since you guys are so bad at knowing how it works, [This is how it works now]

You revision was undone under

policy guidelines

, and is thus exempt from edit warring. Any further attempts by you, however, are not.

If you want to do something about it now, This is where we go]

I'm playing properly now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Urammar (talk • contribs) 11:38, 31 October 2014‎

Yes, the third recommendation in the DRN link you give is "Request community input on article content" which is what I've suggested. Shall we go ahead and do that? Either of us can start an RFC.

I was just reverting your change because you were repeatedly applying it with an edit summary of "re talk page", as if it had been agreed on the talk page, but there's no consensus there yet. My most recent revert was also because you were making a controversial attempt to rename the article, when

McGeddon (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I already started an RfC. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 11:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I made perfectly clear in my post on the talk page that begins "Read this carefully", and ends "If you want to revert, file for resolution" that is exactly what you need to do. Urammar (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

<Reporting user for edit war/page vandalism> Please refer to [Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise)] User McGeddon is knowingly revising edits against policy.

Friendly reminder: Policy based revisions, as I understand it, are exempt from edit war counts. This user has been instructed on both my talk page, and the Alien talk page to request dispute resolution in place of further edits.

Thank you for your time --Urammar (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, I'm afraid - policy based reverts are not exempt from the rules on edit warring. The only exceptions to the rules are listed

Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise) is definitely edit warring. Stop it. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry to be a pain in the bum. I just need some clarification on the

WP:Edit war

page then, as it is what I consulted before making the change. I'm pretty sure I read it on another page also, that specifically uses the terminology "does not contribute to edit war count" but I cannot seem to find it.

On that page it states; "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring"

Am I to understand that

WP:DontRevertNoConsensus

is not a policy? Have I misinterpreted something?

Just after some clarification so I don't get in trouble in the future. Thank you!

Urammar (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct,

WP:DRNC

is not policy. From the header it says "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.".

In regards to "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies": the overriding reasons are listed at

WP:3RRNO. Only for those 7 reasons are you exempt from 3RR. None of those applied to what you were doing in the Alien article. Stickee (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

]

Be advised I have also added my side to the notes of your report.

Thank you for the notification, if this was not automated.

Urammar (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've closed

early twice now. RFCs can only be closed by involved editors if "the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants", which is clearly not the case here. The RFC should be closed by an uninvolved editor, typically after 30 days - if conversation stalls for a week then we can look at closing it early, but it should not be up to one of the contributors to make the call.

Please don't close the RFC early again. Since you have already been warned for edit warring this exact reversion prior to the RFC, restoring it again will be taken as a continuation of that edit war and you may be blocked.--

]

Are you retarded?

Urammar (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]