Revision as of 05:01, 18 November 2014 editZad68 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,355 edits →Second warning regarding civility: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:07, 18 November 2014 edit undoCheesyAppleFlake (talk | contribs)171 edits →Second warning regarding civilityNext edit → | ||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
was not an appropriate or collaborative, content-focused comment, and it was just one of many unnecessary sharp comments you've made at that article's already overly-contentious Talk page. Please reconsider your approach to working alongside your fellow editors. <code>]]</code> 05:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | was not an appropriate or collaborative, content-focused comment, and it was just one of many unnecessary sharp comments you've made at that article's already overly-contentious Talk page. Please reconsider your approach to working alongside your fellow editors. <code>]]</code> 05:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
:It was perfectly appropriate, because the article is being destroyed by semi-literate idiots intent on forcing a medical agenda onto an article about a consumer product. And you can't seriously tell me that either Sieg Heilman or Quack has any significant mastery of the English language, because they don't.--] (]) 05:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:07, 18 November 2014
Welcome!
|
Dispute resolution re McNeill for Electronic cigarette article
I requested dispute resolution with respect to this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Violation_of_consensus
Please join the discussion. Mihaister (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL
This comment is not appropriate . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- By now everyone knows Quack is basically your meatpuppet, after you gave him a barnstar in the middle of a discussion about his repeated disruptive editing.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) For a newish account that shows surprising familiarity with some out-of-the-way happenings from a while ago. Since you mention puppetry, I take it you are familiar with policy in this space. Have you got other accounts here? Alexbrn 06:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hardly out-of-the-way; the incestuous relationship between Quack and Doc James is pretty common knowledge. And no, I don't have other accounts. Do you?--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) For a newish account that shows surprising familiarity with some out-of-the-way happenings from a while ago. Since you mention puppetry, I take it you are familiar with policy in this space. Have you got other accounts here? Alexbrn 06:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Second warning regarding civility
This was not an appropriate or collaborative, content-focused comment, and it was just one of many unnecessary sharp comments you've made at that article's already overly-contentious Talk page. Please reconsider your approach to working alongside your fellow editors. Zad68
05:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- It was perfectly appropriate, because the article is being destroyed by semi-literate idiots intent on forcing a medical agenda onto an article about a consumer product. And you can't seriously tell me that either Sieg Heilman or Quack has any significant mastery of the English language, because they don't.--CheesyAppleFlake (talk) 05:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)