This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 13:01, 29 November 2011 (Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2011/November.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:01, 29 November 2011 by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:AndyTheGrump/Archives/2011/November.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:
|
Archives:
Sept 2010, Oct 2010, Nov 2010, Dec 2010.
Jan 2011, Feb 2011, Mar 2011, Apr 2011, May 2011, Jun 2011. July 2011. Aug 2011. Sept 2011, Oct 2011, Nov 2011, Dec 2011.
Wikileaks/Conspiracy theory of manipulation.
14:24, 6 November 2011 AndyTheGrump (144,798 bytes) (Undid revision 459293426 by 81.50.20.140 (talk) This is WP:OR, and would need a source that stated there was a 'conspiracy theory', at the very least)
Hello Andy,
I was 81.50.20.140. Sorry for my English, it is not my native tongue. Indeed, I forgot to put a reference for the second half of the sentence. The reference would be "see Main article Reception of WikiLeaks". Please have a look at the subsection I put there at the time on the subject. Regards, Adrian Belua (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is a matter of policy that Misplaced Pages does not cite itself as a source, and nor does it cite other-language Wikipedias. Personally, I don't think that the two other sources cited actually back up the suggestion either. The correct place for discussion of article content, however, is on article talk pages, so others can contribute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Ram Dass
Could use some support on this article. Another editor keeps added "religion = Jewish" even though the subject was a professed atheist before converting to Hinduism, the only religion the subject has professed. Yworo (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion involving you at WP:AN/I
Hi AndyTheGrump,
I realise you are upset about this, but the usual procedure is to first of all discuss the problem with yourself. If that doesn't work, you might also want to report yourself to WP:WQA, before moving to WP:ANI.
I also note that you did not notify yourself of this WP:AN/I discussion, as you are required to do.
Lastly, please don't burst an artery; as I'm sure you are aware, if that happened, Misplaced Pages cannot give you any medical advice.
Thank you, and columns of superheated-water-ly happy editing.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Er, yes - I've obviously failed to notify myself properly, and should therefore raise a complaint on AN/I about this...
- Thanks for the comments, anyway. I'll try not to burst anything I might regret later ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
November 2011
Your recent editing history at CETI Patterson Power Cell shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. »εϻαdιν Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 06:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't post ridiculous notices about 'consensus'. The fuckwits edit-warring over this article don't give a damn about such concepts - and frankly, if Misplaced Pages is going to tolerate such morionic POV-pushing turds, it can manage without me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Only Warning
This is totally unacceptable. Retract and apologize now. --Chris 06:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- NO. I consider the integrity of Misplaced Pages more important than civility. If Misplaced Pages consensus is to the contrary, it can do without me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is no attitude to have in this matter. Have yourself a nice cup of tea and sit down before making any further edits. You have clearly grown quite angry and that is understandable (I myself have had my fair share of morons to deal with), but there is NO REASON for this level of incivility! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 06:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) Ok, I gave you a chance. I've blocked you for 24 hours. I'd suggest taking this time to cool down a bit. If you can't engage in civil discussion, then you're only serving to hurt Misplaced Pages not help it, even if you are right. --Chris 06:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Lengthened to 72 hours. Please understand that we take such grievous insults very, very seriously. I don't care if they're directed at the worst person in the world; as Chris G said, even if you're right, being uncivilized only hampers things. Please take some time to reflect. m.o.p 07:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)