| Revision as of 22:39, 4 May 2008 editRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 editsm Reverted edits by Blechnic (talk) to last version by 74.13.127.63← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:44, 4 May 2008 edit undoRyulong (talk | contribs)218,132 edits →This block is totally avoidable.Next edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| ===This block is totally avoidable.=== | ===This block is totally avoidable.=== | ||
| Blechnic, end this bad attitude. You may be right, but it was how you conducted yourself in the editing and discussion that got you blocked. Your bad behaviour distracts and ruins your good message. What a shame. This block is totally avoidable. Live and learn. --] (]) 10:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC) | Blechnic, end this bad attitude. You may be right, but it was how you conducted yourself in the editing and discussion that got you blocked. Your bad behaviour distracts and ruins your good message. What a shame. This block is totally avoidable. Live and learn. --] (]) 10:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :This IP editor was right, and that is why I reverted your removal and subsequent changes. You were simply being acerbic and that was in no way helping the encyclopedic goals. You were told to stop editing the page disruptively, and you continued. The entire article has been rewritten and the sources that you claimed were spam have since been removed (yet you found a way to complain about the new sources). Perhaps it is best that you are not returning to Misplaced Pages, as your mindset would hinder the project.—] (]) 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:44, 4 May 2008
The fact is Misplaced Pages has no room for new editors. But plenty of room for administrators and established editors to do whatever the hell they want, policy, guidelins, and common sense be damned, along with the new users. --Blechnic (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Good riddance.
Deleted my watch list. Let someone else edit plant viruses and agricultural pests of West Afriaca on Misplaced Pages, not that anyone else is doing it. Whatever, I can't risk that I might have to discuss the article, and using talk pages is not allowed according to administrators.
Just because folks don't seem to get it, as long as Misplaced Pages policy is that discussing edits on an article's talk page will get an editor blocked, there's no point in editing. As long as Misplaced Pages's policy is that an editor who thinks something "looks okay" trumps Misplaced Pages's policy, there's no point in editing.
I was blocked for discussing legitimate fact requested tags to an article, because another editor felt that an professor's blog, in spite of policy, looked like a verifiable source. I was blocked while I was discussing my fact tags on the talk page, and I was blocked because the other editor did not have a leg to stand on, but she is an established editor, and I'm a new editor, and as such, all administrators in the vicinity must protect her, and get me out of her way.
That is why I was blocked. I was blocked for quoting policy, for discussing the issue, for raising legitimate policy concerns about a poorly sourced article that was on the main page.
This block is totally avoidable.
Blechnic, end this bad attitude. You may be right, but it was how you conducted yourself in the editing and discussion that got you blocked. Your bad behaviour distracts and ruins your good message. What a shame. This block is totally avoidable. Live and learn. --74.13.127.63 (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- This IP editor was right, and that is why I reverted your removal and subsequent changes. You were simply being acerbic and that was in no way helping the encyclopedic goals. You were told to stop editing the page disruptively, and you continued. The entire article has been rewritten and the sources that you claimed were spam have since been removed (yet you found a way to complain about the new sources). Perhaps it is best that you are not returning to Misplaced Pages, as your mindset would hinder the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)