| Revision as of 14:11, 19 January 2013 edit190.46.98.195 (talk) don't know what this refers to, and barging into dialogue with shouty templates is not helpful.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:29, 5 February 2023 edit undoBD2412 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators2,454,681 editsm blank ancient IP talk page messagesTags: AWB Replaced | ||
| (32 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| ==December 2012== | |||
| Please read ], particularly the section on "Edit summary dos and don'ts", and act accordingly. ] (]) 09:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Warning=== | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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 don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 18:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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 don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 18:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Before you get blocked for a combination of edit warring, disruptive editing, and incivility, please read the policy on using reliable sources, and then you'll understand why is not an invalid POV claim, and not a valid reason for reversion. ] (]) 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I can find sources that say that Sergeant Pepper is the Beatle's best album. I can find sources that say that War and Peace is the best book ever written. I can find sources that say that British Airways is the world's favourite airline. Putting those claims directly into an article, in the voice of the encyclopaedia, violates NPOV. If you can't understand that, you really shouldn't be editing. You are edit-warring to force blatantly biased material into the encyclopaedia, and that's a very silly thing to do. ] (]) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 23:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for ], as you did at ]. 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 below this notice the text <!-- 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 ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. - ] (]) 00:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| I find it scarcely believable that people will go to such lengths as block someone to prevent the enforcement of a core policy. It's simple to understand and very obvious that "best known for" is an opinion. I can hardly even comprehend that someone would edit war to enforce this obviously wrong wording, still less that the party enforcing the policy correctly would get blocked. ] (]) 04:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == January 2013 == | |||
| ] Please stop your ], as you did at ]. Your edits have been ] or removed. | |||
| * If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ]. | |||
| * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ]. | |||
| Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being ].<!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 --> ] (]) 07:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Incidentally, ] contains multiple references and statements in the lead to it being the best film ever made - be a dear and pop over there to remove them would you? Thanks. ] (]) 07:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I really didn't think I was making a subtle, difficult point about Citizen Kane but it looks like you missed it anyway. The article does not state that it's the best film ever made. It states that it has been described by many critics as the best film ever made. The former is opinion, the latter is fact. If you seriously can't understand this, it's no wonder you're doing so much damage. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. Your edits appear to be ] and have been ] or removed. | |||
| * If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ]. | |||
| * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ]. | |||
| Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's ], and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive2 --> | |||
| Ok, so I've hit you witha template, but please pay attention to the last paragraph: ''"Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you."'' Your behaviour and unique intepretation of policy has already led to you being blocked once. ] (]) 13:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :] Please refrain from being a ]. Your edits at ] have been ] or removed. | |||
| :There, I made my own template. What's your fucking problem, seriously? It is really fucking obvious that "best known for" is an opinion and not an objective fact. It should be really fucking easy to understand the bit in ] that says "Avoid stating opinions as facts". This is not hard stuff. What is your motivation for insisting that this POV be included in the article? When did you last read the core policies of wikipedia? ] (]) 16:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 17:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for your ] caused by ] and violation of the ] at ]. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}} below this notice, but you should read the ] first. ] (]) 21:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)</div>{{z10}}<!-- Template:uw-3block --> | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| ::The phrase "best known for" is quite blatantly in violation of NPOV. It's an opinion. Removal of this phrase is required by policy. Repeatedly inserting blatantly inappropriate material into the encyclopaedia is vandalism. Reverting simple vandalism should not result in a block. It's staggering and disgusting that NPOV violators are not only not being corrected, not only not being educated, but are actually being encouraged now by admins to continue deliberately compromising the quality of the encyclopaedia. | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=reverting simple vandalism | decline=This does not appear to be an accurate description of your edits. ] ] 03:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello,<br />'''Thank you for ] to ] last night. A good revision, to which I have continued, in order to produce a better flow of good English. Have a '''<br />I hope you decide to stay.<br />Here are some pages you might like to see: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] and ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| You are welcome to continue editing without ], but you may want to consider '''<span class="plainlinks"></span>'''. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see ]. If you edit without a username, your ] (190.46.98.195) is used to identify you instead. | |||
| In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on ], or ask your question and then place <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> before the question on this page.<br />Cheers!<!-- Template:welcome-anon --> – <br /> – <strong>]</strong> |<small>]</small>| 07:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for the note. Much appreciated. I am glad you thought my edit was useful - as you might see from this talk page, there are quite a few people who do not think that following the core policies is useful! ] (]) 11:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are welcome.<br />Sincerely – <br /> – <strong>]</strong> |<small>]</small>| 18:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Post script:''<br />I enjoy, and often buy, your excellent red wine. "Cheers"! – <br /> – <strong>]</strong> |<small>]</small>| 18:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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 don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''"Best known for" is clearly backed up by a reliable third party reference, consensus on the talk page does not support your opinion, you are edit warring again.'' ] (]) 08:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| ::"Best known for" is an opinion, whether it appears in a reference or not. From the very same source, it says she "is taking the tequila world by storm". It says she can hold "everyone’s attention effortlessly, without imposing herself". It says she has had "a brilliant career on stage, screen and radio". It even says that if you drink her tequila you won't get a hangover. Next time someone insists that "best known for" is legitimate article content, I'll add some of those statements as well, seeing as they are clearly backed up by a reliable third party reference. ] (]) 11:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::That would be ], which is also a core policy - and would be reverted. ] (]) 14:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, see, you're wrong there. WP:POINT is a behavioural guideline, not one of the core content policies. Still, at least your comment does suggest that you might see what point is being made. ] (]) 01:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, the point is that you have refused to learn from your previous editing - which led to you being blocked twice - and are now implying that you will be even more intentionally disruptive than you already are - also that you will disregard "a behavioural guideline" (your quote) - which also implies that you have no intention of behaving here on Misplaced Pages. Either that, or your intepretation of "behaving" is as unique as your intepretation of NPOV. ] (]) 07:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Additional: I'm also getting weary of your insistence that nobody but you seems to understand the NPOV policy. It's not that nobody else understands it, just that it - like everything else on both Misplaced Pages and the world in general - is open to intepretation. I, and many other editors, intepret and accept the NPOV policy differently to you. Instead of relentlessly reverting, getting blocked, waiting out your block and rejoining the fray, you should consider what other editors deem acceptable for NPOV on any given article - and accept the consensus there. | |||
| ::::For example, you consider to be unacceptable, yet I don't. However, you don't find unacceptable and reinstated the entirely opinionated claim that photos ''"have been extremely widely reproduced"''. What's the difference? "Best known for" = bad, "have been extremely widely reproduced" = good? ] (]) 10:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't know about everyone else but you certainly don't understand NPOV. You clearly have a very shaky grasp of what's objective and what's subjective. "Extremely widely reproduced" is an objective fact. There are millions of copies of Ansel Adams prints in the world and his photographs are more widely reproduced than almost any other photographer's. If you think that's an opinion then frankly you're stupid beyond belief. "Best known for" is a subjective statement. Who are you to say what I or anyone else knows anyone best for? You don't know, and nor does the Daily Telegraph. It's an opinion. | |||
| :::::And don't try to draw any inferences from me correcting you on what is core policy and what is not. The only inference you need to draw from that is that you don't know the policies well enough. ] (]) 14:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:29, 5 February 2023
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.