User talk:Festermunk

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Festermunk, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 17:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Naksa Day

Hi Festermunk, just a note in case you don't have Naksa Day watchlisted: I undid your most recent edit to the article. First of all, there's no blanket ban on linking to YouTube. As long as the entity uploading the video is a copyright owner – and that is the case here – it's fine. Secondly, the video is raw footage with no editorial commentary or anything else. So the funding by the Russian government is immaterial. Let me know if you feel otherwise, though.—Biosketch (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

AUV

I admittedly seemed angry when I undid the Texas IP's revision who was basically justifying the shooter. But we certainly can't go to the point of removing everything that's "politicized", otherwise we wouldn't understand much of it! It's an article about a left-wing youth movement, so it would be preposterous not to say that when its meeting was attacked, the shooter was motivated by far-right purposes. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion regarding edit

There is a discussion at Talk:2011_Russian_protests#Cites_do_not_say_this regarding this edit which you recently made. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. diff — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Megaupload

Regarding your work that I undid here, please read WP:SYNTH before you restore your "state-run" claim. I believe you're running afoul of the SYNTH policy because you seem to be making a comment about the reliability of RT even though such a comment isn't specifically connected to Megaupload. CityOfSilver 20:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Lin

No, actually when you remove something already existed for awhile without objection (meaning that it is accepted by consensus), the burden is on you to convince others why what you did is correct. Not the other way around. Also now you are in violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule which could lead to a block. Since you stubbornly refuse to start discussion, I've start a thread there about this.—Chris!_c/t 05:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"when you remove something already existed for awhile with objection (meaning that it is accepted by consensus)" Surely you jest when you write that.Festermunk (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I had a typo.—Chris!_c/t 06:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think what I said is bs, then go read WP:Consensus yourself. Under Reaching consensus through editing, it says "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached."—Chris!_c/t 06:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

One more thing. Please don't think that you win just because I temporarily stop reverting. It is just that I don't want to edit war. If you don't have any meaningful reply any time soon, your edit will be reverted. —Chris!_c/t 06:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Your recent editing history at Jeremy Lin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)