Template:Archive box collapsible

I was thinking of creating a fake policy page called "Requests for Jimboship" and making you the candidate. Do you think I'd get away with pulling that one for the day? I know you are a regular participant in April Fool's jokes. CycloneGU (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okie, I see you're active, can I guess this is not of interest then? CycloneGU (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy April Fools! I hope you didn't take my prank in bad light. And it's Pink! --TitanOne (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea to go about doing this but I had in mind something more than I did. I wanted to nominate your user page for deletion on the grounds that "This user deliberately causes harm to wild animals by having them sit in front of a man-made contraption that emits harmful radiation. In addition, there is no concrete proof that these animals behave this way in the wild, therefore disrupting their normal daily life cycle." Draconiator (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm planning on putting the AFD for AFD back up... moar lulzy... if that's ok with you. (i.e. take the MFD down instead?) — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta make you understand.... :) Dawnseeker2000 02:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you so kindly comment there? =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2011, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2011 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2011 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's a new one on me... Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Special:Log Lanthanum-138 (talk). 15:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah! That's funny EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 23:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no more reason to delete this as a test than there is to delete my sandbox as a test. Kindly lay off on the personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

A 3RR report has been filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring--JOJ ^Hutton 01:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]