User talk:Ewolfg1

A Belated Welcome

Hello Ewolfg1! Welcome to UESPWiki. It's always good to have new members. If you would like to help improve any of our pages, you may want to take a look at the following links:

• Policies and Guidelines: UESPWiki standards and expectations
• Help Contents: a list of in-depth Help pages
• Quick Editing Guide: a quick guide to wiki markup
• Getting Started: how you can help

If you would like to spice up your userpage, click here for a list of userboxes you can use, including a guide to making your own.

When you're editing, it's always a good idea to leave edit summaries to explain the changes you have made to a particular page, and remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~. Also, the "show preview" button is a great way to view the changes you've made so far without actually saving the page (our patrollers really appreciate it!).

Feel free to practice editing in the sandbox or discuss the games in the forums. If you need any help, don't hesitate to contact one of our mentors. Have fun! —Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 00:20, 3 November 2012 (GMT)

Undoing edits

Please stop reverting legitimate edits for no reason. All of the reverts you've undone were made in line with wiki policy, so there is absolutely no reason to undo them. Your tone is also coming across as more than a bit inflammatory, which could potentially lead to the types of discussions better left avoided. I would advise you to review several of the links posted in your welcome message, particularly the style guide and etiquette policy. Please refrain from restoring unconstructive edits, as it is considered disruptive editing and may result in your account being blocked from editing. Zul se onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 03:34, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

Show me the necropost policy that you speak of in these so called legitimate edits.--Ewolfg1 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

Right here, fourth paragraph down. And again, please remember to watch your tone. Zul se onikaan^{Laan tinvaak} 03:53, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

"Deletion of all or part of another editor's contribution is only acceptable when the contribution is completely off-topic, responds to a post so old it's unlikely to be read by the poster or of concern to anyone else (a necropost), or clearly violates the wiki's Etiquette standards." The posts you deleted were not offtopic, are of concern to anyone who wants to know about the information being talked about (which exactly what a wiki is created for), and does not violate the Etiquette standards. And as for your threat to me to "watch my tone" you can kiss my ass, how's that for tone? When you delete legitimate posts by claiming necroposting I will readd them every single time.--Ewolfg1 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

Okay, just to hopefully de-escalate here a bit, I think there's a certain argument to be made for the post being on-topic. That said, the question was a little outside the scope of the original post, so a new topic that referenced the older topic would also have been a good way to go, and tends to make people a lot less twitchy on the necropost reversions. It's an interesting question and as soon as I check if the location of the first dagger is fixed or not, I'll restore the question in a new section, hopefully with an answer. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 04:37, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

And someone could easily say that creating a new section when there is already a section that deals specifically with that topic is already created it's wrong to create a new section and then revert that edit. You do see how the merry go round just keeps spinning right? I could easily find hundreds of topics that end up lasting for years before they finally peter out, just because it's been a while doesn't mean that the topic is closed forever.--Ewolfg1 (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

Warning

Please do not edit war, or insult other editors. If you continue to abuse your editing privileges, this IP address will be blocked from editing. Please consider improving the work of others, not harming it. AKB Talk Cont Mail 04:11, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

I note how you haven't done anything to the now 2 people deleting the question being asked at http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim_talk:Dark_Brotherhood_Sanctuary#Daggers_in_the_Map yet you warn me? His question does NOT meet any definition for necroposting.--Ewolfg1 (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

It becomes an edit war after 3 reverts. You have four. The others are within the 3-Revert Rule that applies to everyone. If they did it as well, they'd be in trouble, but they didn't, so they aren't. -damon  ^{talk ♥ contribs} 04:28, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

Still doesn't excuse the fact that the question being asked isn't a necropost and yet it keeps getting deleted. Where exactly is the guy asking that question supposed to post at if not in the EXACT place he posted???? Also this is me officially appealing the block placed on my account or demanding that those deleting legit questions by falsely claiming necropost also get warned/banned. edit: and ThuumofReason also has 4 reverts on that page yet he received no warning nor ban.--Ewolfg1 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

The fourth revert you're talking about by Thuum from what i can tell reverted someone else and not you. I don't think that falls under breaking the 3 revert rule. Lorenut (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

Damon counted my revert of your revert as my 4th which means that at least according to his logic ThuumofReason also did 4, the last 10 edits of that page have all been about this guys question about a dagger on a map. Tell me where else his question should be asked or put it back on the page.--Ewolfg1 (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

What AKB said in the section below about Thuum not breaking the 3RR is what i was trying to say, but i guess the way i worded it didn't quite make it as understandable as i meant it to be. Lorenut (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

Blocked

This account has been blocked from editing UESPWiki for repeatedly edit warring, despite being warned to stop. Additionally, your harsh reactions to requests to stop were taken into account with this block. If you wish to appeal the block, you may make your request on your talk page, which you can still edit even while being blocked. AKB Talk Cont Mail 05:06, 28 January 2015 (GMT)

In response to your claim to the edit to Skyrim talk:Dark Brotherhood Sanctuary not being a necropost, it was. It's understandable if you did not understand that, which is quite clear from this edit summary and this edit summary, but your response to being shown the policy could have been justification for this block on its own. However, as this was done alongside your clear violation of Three Revert Rule, I find it hard to respond in a more diplomatic fashion, especially considering that the last user who tried to talk to you was told to "kiss my ass".

In response to your claim that the edit in question was not a necropost, I do not believe that you can make that claim on account of your inexperience with the policy in question, as irrefutably proven with your edit summaries, your request to see the policy, and your previous admin noticeboard post on the subject. Even if it were not a necropost, which can be an admittedly subjective determination, edit warring would still not be the correct response, as per our way of forming consensus.

As for your shock at Lorenut and ThuumofReason not being warned or blocked, the reason for that is simple, neither violated any policy. Your claim that Thuum broke 3RR is incorrect, since ThuumofReason made four reverts to the page in question over a period of four days, while the scope of 3RR is within 24 hours. In comparison, you made four reverts in the space of one hour. I also do not understand your appeal to this block, since it was both made before I posted this explanation and without any grounds upon which you intend to appeal it. Your request is as such: "Also this is me officially appealing the block placed on my account or demanding that those deleting legit questions by falsely claiming necropost also get warned/banned". As the other users did not violate any policy, I cannot warn or block them, nor do I have any desire to. Secondly, I cannot even call that a true appeal, since it does not include anything a traditional appeal would, excluding the word "appeal", I suppose. I would suggest logging off the wiki for the night. If you choose to do so, I would collect my thoughts and appeal tomorrow. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 05:06, 28 January 2015 (GMT)