| Revision as of 17:41, 4 January 2015 editAtsme (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,813 editsm →PLEASE STOP the spurious claims and personal attacks...: move para down one space← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:42, 4 January 2015 edit undoNomoskedasticity (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,766 edits →PLEASE STOP the spurious claims and personal attacks...: not likelyNext edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| Your recent edit at G. Edward Griffin Talk involves a spurious claim you made about me as follows: ''"Your repeated reference to other editors' disagreements with you as "disruption" is improper..."'' Excuse me, but the statement that obviously provoked your spurious comment follows: ''"...has offered a fair and viable compromise which certainly does not warrant the disruption we're seeing now."'' Not one editor was mentioned or referenced. My statement was a generalization of the disruption we are currently experiencing at the article - meaning disturbance or problems that interrupt an event, activity, or process per Webster. I remind you to adhere to ], and stop your personal attacks against me. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 17:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC) | Your recent edit at G. Edward Griffin Talk involves a spurious claim you made about me as follows: ''"Your repeated reference to other editors' disagreements with you as "disruption" is improper..."'' Excuse me, but the statement that obviously provoked your spurious comment follows: ''"...has offered a fair and viable compromise which certainly does not warrant the disruption we're seeing now."'' Not one editor was mentioned or referenced. My statement was a generalization of the disruption we are currently experiencing at the article - meaning disturbance or problems that interrupt an event, activity, or process per Webster. I remind you to adhere to ], and stop your personal attacks against me. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF"><b>]</b></font><font color="gold">☯</font>] 17:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :You attack other editors for being disruptive -- on no grounds other than that they are expressing their disagreement with you -- and then object to being called on it? I have no intention of ceasing my participation in talk pages in this mode, and if you think it amounts to disruption and personal attacks then you might need to test that theory at ANI. ] (]) 17:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:42, 4 January 2015
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)
Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Template:Z33
Discretionary sanctions notification - Pseudoscience
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.I'm alerting you about these discretionary sanctions as I want to move away from the BLP issues at G. Edward Griffin. Apologies for the double notification regarding the same article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year Nomoskedasticity!
Nomoskedasticity,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. NorthAmerica 12:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
PLEASE STOP the spurious claims and personal attacks...
Your recent edit at G. Edward Griffin Talk involves a spurious claim you made about me as follows: "Your repeated reference to other editors' disagreements with you as "disruption" is improper..." Excuse me, but the statement that obviously provoked your spurious comment follows: "...has offered a fair and viable compromise which certainly does not warrant the disruption we're seeing now." Not one editor was mentioned or referenced. My statement was a generalization of the disruption we are currently experiencing at the article - meaning disturbance or problems that interrupt an event, activity, or process per Webster. I remind you to adhere to WP:Civility, and stop your personal attacks against me. Atsme☯ 17:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- You attack other editors for being disruptive -- on no grounds other than that they are expressing their disagreement with you -- and then object to being called on it? I have no intention of ceasing my participation in talk pages in this mode, and if you think it amounts to disruption and personal attacks then you might need to test that theory at ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)