User talk:Ole Førsten

July 2009

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ::Note: Queen crosses many different genres of music. Specific genres for specific songs is personal opinion. And personal opinion has no place on Wikipedia. The WikiProject Queen has discussed all the articles related to their project and have agreed by consensus that all Queen related articles be labeled as Rock music (or hard rock in a few rare instances) No other genre is acceptable in these articles. Please refrain from undoing consensus on Wikipedia or you may be blocked from editing. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's joke? What the hell test?--Ole Førsten (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I would ignore this "warning". That editor has a history of reverting good-faith edits and calling it "vandalism". On the other hand it's a good idea for you to take the issue to the talk page of the article to discuss the matter civilly with a dispute such as this. -- Atama^chat 22:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... Do not ignore any valid warning issued on Wikipedia. If you continue to ignore previous discussion and make test edits based on uncited personal opinion you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You may certainly propose changes to Queen articles to the project talk page and wait for discussion and agreement. But when a consensus is in place it is bad form to ignore it... especially when your edits are unreferenced. Feel free to ask for assistance. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't ignore a valid warning, like the 3RR warning below (that's a pretty cut-and-dry bad thing to do). But vandalism only applies to blatant, unambiguous attempts to deliberately damage an article. Even an edit that goes against consensus, while bad, isn't vandalism if the editor has done it in good faith (mistaken or not), and giving false vandalism warnings could potentially get you in trouble, so take greater care in the future when engaged with an editor whom you are in disagreement with. -- Atama^chat 18:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is also a pertinent warning:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Triplestop x3 01:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Listen, I'm famous user of Russian Wikipedia and I know all rules. You can just tell me about this consensus and I would not return haavy mental in article Liar (Queen song). But if you just reverted my edits without comments... this is just roused.--Ole Førsten (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My rule is that if someone reverts an edit I've made I'll go directly to the talk page to discuss it. Maybe they've done so out of a misunderstanding, maybe I can get support from other editors to keep my edit, maybe I was actually wrong in my edit. But it's not helpful to keep trying to put in a change that someone else objects to. -- Atama^chat 18:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)