| Revision as of 15:39, 4 June 2014 editPonyo (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators171,558 edits block notice← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:09, 5 June 2014 edit undo200.120.158.78 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| You don't want "best known" in ''any'' articles. You make a variety of arguments that shift with the challenges. "Unsourced". Here's a source. "Vague". Sharpen the wording. "But if I slice and dice that one source to leave out the Pink Floyd part..." No, that's immaterial. Rather than deciding what you want and trying to see what argument will stick, try working ''with'' the project. You won't always get things your way, but you'll get over it. We all do. | You don't want "best known" in ''any'' articles. You make a variety of arguments that shift with the challenges. "Unsourced". Here's a source. "Vague". Sharpen the wording. "But if I slice and dice that one source to leave out the Pink Floyd part..." No, that's immaterial. Rather than deciding what you want and trying to see what argument will stick, try working ''with'' the project. You won't always get things your way, but you'll get over it. We all do. | ||
| :I guess you didn't read or understand any of what I've said about this. I never complained about anything being unsourced, never complained about anything being vague. I made one argument only. The claim is subjective and unverifiable. All you can verify with all the sources you can find is that many people hold a given opinion. That does not entitle you to present that opinion as if it is fact. And why, in the end, do you think it's better to say "X is best known (''by some assumed but unspecified demographic'') for being Y", when you can just say "X is Y"? I've asked that at least 10 times now, and no-one's even bothered an attempt at an answer. ] (]) 01:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : | : | ||
| edit summary is a personal attack. You were already blocked for this. Do it again and your next block will be considerably longer. - ] (]) 15:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC) | edit summary is a personal attack. You were already blocked for this. Do it again and your next block will be considerably longer. - ] (]) 15:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Line 7: | Line 9: | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for disruptive editing and personal attacks. You may have a point in the various disputes in which you have become involved, however if you are not capable of elucidating your arguments without making personal attacks such as , you will continue to be blocked. You don't have to agree with other editors, but you do need to be able to edit collaboratively. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for disruptive editing and personal attacks. You may have a point in the various disputes in which you have become involved, however if you are not capable of elucidating your arguments without making personal attacks such as , you will continue to be blocked. You don't have to agree with other editors, but you do need to be able to edit collaboratively. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | ||
| :See you on a new IP very soon, I am sure. ] (]) 01:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:09, 5 June 2014
Comment
You don't want "best known" in any articles. You make a variety of arguments that shift with the challenges. "Unsourced". Here's a source. "Vague". Sharpen the wording. "But if I slice and dice that one source to leave out the Pink Floyd part..." No, that's immaterial. Rather than deciding what you want and trying to see what argument will stick, try working with the project. You won't always get things your way, but you'll get over it. We all do.
- I guess you didn't read or understand any of what I've said about this. I never complained about anything being unsourced, never complained about anything being vague. I made one argument only. The claim is subjective and unverifiable. All you can verify with all the sources you can find is that many people hold a given opinion. That does not entitle you to present that opinion as if it is fact. And why, in the end, do you think it's better to say "X is best known (by some assumed but unspecified demographic) for being Y", when you can just say "X is Y"? I've asked that at least 10 times now, and no-one's even bothered an attempt at an answer. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
This edit summary is a personal attack. You were already blocked for this. Do it again and your next block will be considerably longer. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_personal_attacks_from_an_IPCalidum 15:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel'sPonyo 15:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- See you on a new IP very soon, I am sure. 200.120.158.78 (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)