Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kwame Nkrumah (talk | contribs) at 14:26, 12 August 2006 (→Civility warning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Civility warning

I find this edit to be less than civil: I also don't find your user page in its current state to be very civil, it's borderline at best. Please try to be more civil in future or you may find yourself blocked again. Also, read the wrong version... if there is a revert war, it is lame to complain about which version ends up protected or reverted to. Removal of this warning without a clear indication that you have read and understood it might result in your being blocked. Please do not remove it or subsequent warnings. You should reply here, I have this page on watch. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. You may be not happy with the post, but I was explaining my position with civility. Civility and distaste for a user (admin) actions are compatible.

Also, my issues with those users affect my edits. I think I am allowed to write down what are the issues I have open with them.

It is lame to complain for an admin to protect a page on the "wrong version", and infact I did not complain when he did the first time. The second time he protected the "right version", but later reverted the protection and moved back to the "wrong version". This means he actually endorsed the two pages. Am I allowed to complain for a protection that turned into an endorsement?

I will remove this thread once it is closed.

Kwame Nkrumah

No, you're not allowed to complain. You can point things out, you can work on the talk page of the article or template to work through differences but you are not allowed to "complain". You really need to read the link I gave you as it refutes the argument you are making. You're complaining about who reverted what instead of working through differences on the talk page, and that is the wrong approach. At this rate, if you don't change your approach, you'll never be able to edit here successfully, I am afraid. This warning thread needs to stay until you demonstrate successful editing, which right now you have not, so other admins know that there is an issue here (and they are encouraged to look at the history to see that in fact you have been warned before). Removal of it will result in a block or a protected page. Also, please don't use excessive paragraph breaks, and sign your posts with ~~~~ thanks. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Don't format my edits according to your personal taste.
2. The link you sent me is under the Category:Humor of Wikimedia. Do you really want me to follow what is written there? (Did you actually read what is written inside?)
3. I am not complaining about who reverted, but about the fact that the guy who should simply protect a page reverted to his preferred version, and this is not what "wrong version" means. If you accept a request for protection, you are not allowed to do an arbitration at the same time.

--Kwame Nkrumah 14:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You're wikilawyering, and I (and many other admins) am not a big fan of that. Go with the intent and the spirit not the letter. You've been warned and just so you know, you now have more admins watching you than before. I characterise your behaviour as borderline incivil and I caution you again to be more civil or there will be consequences. This warning needs to stay. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

(I removed the reference to category humor, you need to prefix it with a : for it not to add the page to the category)... and yes I've read it many times. I suspect you haven't read it enough times yet to know why it applies in this case, because it does. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, could you please quote the relevant section here? Thanks.--Kwame Nkrumah 14:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)