| Revision as of 19:43, 26 December 2016 editPablo.alonso (talk | contribs)179 editsm →Assistance with terminology and templates← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:49, 27 December 2016 edit undoPablo.alonso (talk | contribs)179 edits Removing genuinely ill-mannered comment by antagonistic editor who doesn't know when to drop it.Next edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| ] (]) 16:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | ] (]) 16:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | ||
| == Assistance with terminology and templates == | |||
| Hi, Pablo.alonso. A quick note to give you 2 quick tips: | |||
| # When quoting someone on a talk page, it's best to use ]. If you were quoting my introductory line in this thread, it would be rendered as, {{tq|"Hi, Pablo.alonso. A quick note to give you 2 quick tips:"}}. You add the quotation marks for the quoted section yourself. | |||
| # Don't use '''Dixit'''. The standard used for English Misplaced Pages is {{sic}}, which is rendered as such: <nowiki>{{sic}}</nowiki> (see ]). Although some editors use this on talk pages, it's usually reserved for the article space when quoting directly where archaisms are used, or there was a typo in the reference being quoted, etc. | |||
| Note, also, that you should always sign comments left on talk pages, including your own. It makes it difficult for other editors to discern who is talking to whom unless ] is followed with as much care as possible. Cheers! --] (]) 03:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for the lesson of condescension. Cheers! ] (]) 12:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding the "Dixit", I am afraid you are wrong. You talk about "dixit" and "sic" as if they were equivalent terms when they are not. The latin "sic" is used to clarify that some part of a text is reproduced in the same exact form as the original. The latin "dixit" is used to emphasize that some specific person said something and thus it always follows the name of such person. As this was my intention, the use of "dixit" is more appropriate versus "sic" and therefore I will keep using it in those circumstances I deem adequate. | |||
| On the other hand, I am not sure to which of the two you are referring to when it is used to mark a typo in the reference being quoted, as it is not clear from your text; but in case you are referring to using "dixit" for such purpose you are also wrong: "sic" is the adequate to mark typos. But this correction is just in case you were referring to "dixit". Cheers! ] (]) 13:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :You fail to realise that this was ''not'' intended as condescension, but a genuinely friendly gesture of information about how Misplaced Pages words. I was courteously explaining that quoting someone on a talk page is done by means of a talk quote template on a talk page. Apparently, I also missed the fact that you weren't using the more strident 'dixit' instead of 'sic' to be as acerbic as possible. Note that using any terms bolded and/or in capitals = ]. You've now proven that you are an extremely ill-mannered person who is quick to be acerbic with editors trying to assist you ]. Unfortunately, good faith has to be earned once it's been questioned, and you've now lost any credibility on that score. It would serve you well to read some of the policies and guidelines carefully and try to understands them, not merely manipulate them to elicit meaning from them that serves you alone. --] (]) 19:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::You must then accept that you fail to express yourself without sounding condescending. If that was a genuinely friendly gesture, then I take your word for it. On the other hand, 'dixit' is not strident at all, may you explain why you think so? Nor my intention in the use of dixit vs sic was acerbic, the intention was to highlight the author of those words as you were pointing out Asilah pinging me as the reason I commented when indeed the reason was that Iñaki was talking about me at my back. Please read again what I said before about dixit: "The latin "dixit" is used to emphasize that some specific person said something and thus it always follows the name of such person". Where is the acerbic intention on that? | |||
| ::What puzzles me enormously is on what grounds do I qualify as an "extremely ill-mannered person". Can you give specific examples of this behaviour? Because now it is me questioning your good faith when you acuse me of being acerbic and ill-mannered with no reason whatsoever for it. Agreed? ] (]) 19:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::About the use of capitals, agreed that it is interpreted as shouting. But '''not''' the bold text. Bold text is used to emphasize an important issue, without implying shouting. Again, and to make you understand this clearly, I used "dixit" in bold because you twice referred to Asilah pinging me, and I wanted to highlight the fact that I did not get in the conversation for that, I got in it because Iñaki LL talked about me at my back. Is this clear for you? And I truly expect an explanation about the "acerbic/ill-mannered/good faith" thing. ] (]) 19:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:49, 27 December 2016
Various accounts
You behave exactly like someone I have met before in long, boring discussions. Do you have other accounts? Iñaki LL (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, and if you are having long, boring discussions with other people maybe you should question yourself.
- You have systematically unedited all my entries, with no other reason behind that your personal feelings. You have not given proper explanations, and some you gave were absurd (non-ideological? secular? wtf?). You have requested unnecessary citations. You have acted like a censor who thinks that owns the page. And like a bully. A bit of humility and recognizing your mistake wouldn't harm you. And I agree with you, this is a long boring discussion. --Pablo Alonso (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppeting case open
You are on your right to make your point in an ongoing sockpuppeting investigation, feel free to use it. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- The investigation has been rejected. The editor Iñaki LL (talk) has been constantly breaching WP:DIS /ETIQUETTE by engaging in WP:Edit warring systematically unediting entries without providing explanations or justifications, by committing WP:vandalism deleting signed comments from other users and by employing WP:harassment through the use of defamation, finalizing in a request for investigation that the editor Iñaki LL (talk) initiated acting on "bad faith" and making a fake case for an "attack" on my person, a request that was subsequently evaluated and rejected.
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pablo.alonso. Thank you. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
This investigation has been rejected and consequently closed. The editor Iñaki LL (talk) spurred this investigation as part of a regular and systematic approach to coerce and harass editors that disagree with him, following a well established pattern that can be checked in other interactions with editors with whom he engages. Apart from instigating sockpuppet investigations, other means of coercion used by Iñaki LL (talk) include:
1) WP:Edit warring, WP:Disruptive editing and violation of WP:AGF
2) Deletion of signed comments from editors, as in: , , , and in order to misrepresent facts and discussion threads and to hide evidence.
3) Editing from anonymous accounts (see ) as explained in post which was deleted by the aforementioned editor.
4) Recurrent accusations of matters already rejected by WP investigators, as evidenced in