| Revision as of 14:07, 8 November 2010 view sourceHans Adler (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,943 edits →Talk-back-like messages: fix history link← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:55, 8 November 2010 view source Dave souza (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators48,696 edits →Talk-back-like messages: adviceNext edit → | ||
| Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
| ::Clarification: I am referring to any notification that you expect a response from me to a thread in which I have already commented. An exception to this would be an untemplated message in full sentences after you have been waiting for a response some time, including at least two full and consecutive hours in which I have been otherwise editing or two unrelated comments to the same thread. An exception to the exception is when I have made it clear that I am not going to reply. ] ] 12:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC) | ::Clarification: I am referring to any notification that you expect a response from me to a thread in which I have already commented. An exception to this would be an untemplated message in full sentences after you have been waiting for a response some time, including at least two full and consecutive hours in which I have been otherwise editing or two unrelated comments to the same thread. An exception to the exception is when I have made it clear that I am not going to reply. ] ] 12:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::Are you using a different ] along the same lines of the different which you invented in the ANI thread? Because ] makes no mention that correct use of the {{tl|talkback}} constitutes harassment.<br>Furthermore, ] suggests that editors do not have the authority to ban others from their talkpage, either in general or with ].<br>If you would rather I simply copy all my replies to you onto your talkpage, rather than just responding on my own and leaving you a template, so be it, but I ] for you to hold such a preference. <font color="#C4112F">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 12:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC) | :::Are you using a different ] along the same lines of the different which you invented in the ANI thread? Because ] makes no mention that correct use of the {{tl|talkback}} constitutes harassment.<br>Furthermore, ] suggests that editors do not have the authority to ban others from their talkpage, either in general or with ].<br>If you would rather I simply copy all my replies to you onto your talkpage, rather than just responding on my own and leaving you a template, so be it, but I ] for you to hold such a preference. <font color="#C4112F">╟─]]►]─╢</font> 12:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::]. If you persist with ] in the form of "unwanted contact" this "may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Misplaced Pages and cause disruption to the project", so please desist with your ]. You doubtless think your actions are justifiable or acceptable, please accept that your postings on the talk page of Hans Adler are unnecessary and disruptive, and cease posting on that talk page. . . . ], ] 14:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit conflict blanked another editor's contribution == | == Edit conflict blanked another editor's contribution == | ||
Revision as of 14:55, 8 November 2010
|
TreasuryTag is currently, or is going to be, away from Misplaced Pages, between April 14 and April 19, 2009, and may not be able to respond immediately to queries. He may, however, edit a little unless he's using the splendid Wikibreak enforcer. |
Just to fix the formatting...
Lime
Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus
Ref desk
Don't intend to be unduly skeptical, but how can you be "extremely familiar with the Old Testament" yet not be aware that the Philistines were the traditional enemies of the Israelites? It doesn't entirely jibe... AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think that probably is unduly skeptical, but I never claimed not to know that the Philistines were the enemies of the Israelites. What I clearly said was that I didn't know where/what Gath was, which – as I'm sure you either will appreciate or would appreciate if you weren't just trying to score minor points – is a significantly more abstruse piece of information. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 13:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not really -- the conclusion seemed to be that I think you're intellectually lazy (at least on this particular occasion), while you think I'm vindictively scoring points, so I decided to pretty much leave it there... AnonMoos (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- If I am to be considered "intellectually lazy" for asking on the RefDesk about abstruse Biblical geography, then one has to wonder exactly what the RefDesk is for... ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 17:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- The initial query was not the problem. AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- So what was the problem? ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 09:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- From knowing that the quote ended "lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice", you should have been able to deduce the basic meaning; and if you were curious about the location of Gath, you could have easily looked at the Gath article; and if you wanted to know the exact context of the saying, you could have read II Samuel chapter 1, supplemented if necessary by fairly quick and easy Google and/or Misplaced Pages searches. In short, if you showed a little individual initiative or "rumgumption" (as they used to call it), the whole semi-incident could have been avoided). AnonMoos (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, according to WP:Reference desk/Guidelines, the desk "will give assistance in interpreting questions, help with ideas and concepts, and attempt to point them to resources that might help." Whether or not you feel I was being dumb, my question(s) fell within that parameter, and if you are not prepared to go along with it, you really should not be providing responses there at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 13:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- From knowing that the quote ended "lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice", you should have been able to deduce the basic meaning; and if you were curious about the location of Gath, you could have easily looked at the Gath article; and if you wanted to know the exact context of the saying, you could have read II Samuel chapter 1, supplemented if necessary by fairly quick and easy Google and/or Misplaced Pages searches. In short, if you showed a little individual initiative or "rumgumption" (as they used to call it), the whole semi-incident could have been avoided). AnonMoos (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- So what was the problem? ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 09:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- The initial query was not the problem. AnonMoos (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- If I am to be considered "intellectually lazy" for asking on the RefDesk about abstruse Biblical geography, then one has to wonder exactly what the RefDesk is for... ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 17:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not really -- the conclusion seemed to be that I think you're intellectually lazy (at least on this particular occasion), while you think I'm vindictively scoring points, so I decided to pretty much leave it there... AnonMoos (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Rlevse's userpage
Where would be a better place to discuss the protection/non-protection of that editor's talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- It was absurd to suggest that the discussion should be moved to AN from ANI given the response it got there. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Retrospectively, I have to agree. GoodDay (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW: Welcome to the Giacomo doesn't like you club. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Talk-back-like messages
Can you please respect my wish not to be bombarded with those for no reason at all. I think I have made it clear by now that I am watching that ANI thread. We don't need two completely unnecessary edits on my talk page for every post of yours. Hans Adler 11:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Since I am asking you probing and direct questions, I wish it to be abundantly clear that you are aware of these. While I am sure that you would not deliberately pretend not to have seen one, I am aware of the likelihood that when following a vast and growing thread, it is very easy to miss individual comments. So in response to your initial question, I am afraid I must answer "no." ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 12:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I started with a polite request in an edit summary to follow the request on my talk page. On the second occasion I repeated this request, then I simply rolled back and reiterated my wish in detail in the present section. The following time I warned you directly in the ANI thread. This is your second warning. You will not get more than three warnings in any 3-month period starting with the first. After the next talk-back template or similar message following the third warning I will report you for a mild case of harassment. Hans Adler 12:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Clarification: I am referring to any notification that you expect a response from me to a thread in which I have already commented. An exception to this would be an untemplated message in full sentences after you have been waiting for a response some time, including at least two full and consecutive hours in which I have been otherwise editing or two unrelated comments to the same thread. An exception to the exception is when I have made it clear that I am not going to reply. Hans Adler 12:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are you using a different definition of "harassment" along the same lines of the different definition of "tag-teaming" which you invented in the ANI thread? Because WP:HA makes no mention that correct use of the {{talkback}} constitutes harassment.
Furthermore, WP:UP#OWN suggests that editors do not have the authority to ban others from their talkpage, either in general or with specified contractual conditions.
If you would rather I simply copy all my replies to you onto your talkpage, rather than just responding on my own and leaving you a template, so be it, but I can't see any valid reason for you to hold such a preference. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 12:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)- If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests. If you persist with WP:HA#Harassment and disruption in the form of "unwanted contact" this "may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Misplaced Pages and cause disruption to the project", so please desist with your disruptive editing. You doubtless think your actions are justifiable or acceptable, please accept that your postings on the talk page of Hans Adler are unnecessary and disruptive, and cease posting on that talk page. . . . dave souza, talk 14:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are you using a different definition of "harassment" along the same lines of the different definition of "tag-teaming" which you invented in the ANI thread? Because WP:HA makes no mention that correct use of the {{talkback}} constitutes harassment.
Edit conflict blanked another editor's contribution
Hi, could you fix this? You appear to have accidentally blanked another editor's contribution. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry. Actually I just self-reverted my offending edit because I judged it to have been unwise, so the other one is back anyway! ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 13:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- OK, cool. DuncanHill (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)