| Revision as of 19:22, 19 November 2008 editTennis expert (talk | contribs)24,261 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:55, 19 November 2008 edit undoMickMacNee (talk | contribs)23,386 edits don't be a divaNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| {{retired|date=], ]}} | {{retired|date=], ]}} | ||
| Dude. What a totally pointless issue to retire over. Don't ]. ] (]) 19:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:55, 19 November 2008
Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages as of November 19, 2008.Archive of certain discussions before November 19, 2008
The dubious block that was the straw-breaking-the-camel's-back and led to my retirement
- As clearly stated above, and in multiple edit summaries by others, linking to dates is generally not acceptable per WP:MOS#Dates and MOS:UNLINKDATES. Furthermore, overlinking on multiple articles is not acceptable, either. Further reverts on any of these changes with little to no discussion, and a continuation of your edit warring post-block, will lead to lengthier blocks. seicer | talk | contribs 14:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- As I and many editors have noted many times on the MOS discussion pages and at WP:Tennis, there has never been and is not now a consensus to eliminate existing date links, regardless of whether there is consensus to add new date links. (Regrettably, you apparently do not understand this concept as you have not actively participated in those discussions.) And as has been proven, there is certainly no consensus within the tennis project to eliminate date links for tennis articles. Regardless of whether there is consensus in the MOS guidelines (not a policy) to eliminate those links, English-language Misplaced Pages precedent is clear that a more specific consensus (for tennis articles) prevails over a more general consensus (in the MOS). I have simply been preserving the status quo in the face of tag-team disruptive editing, after canvassing and without consensus by the single-purpose account Datedelinker; Tony1, who often engages in blind reverts of my edits and whose legendary incivility and disruption includes, among many other things, accusing me on various discussion pages of having a mental illness and being a pig; Skywalker, who often engages in blind reverts of everything I do, regardless of the nature of my edits; The Rambling Man on tour, whose incivility, hostility, and false accusations continue unabated and who often engages in blind reverts of my work; Closedmouth, who has done thousands of script-based and AWB edits on this issue despite being asked to stop; 2008Olympian, who has done hundreds of script-based edits on this issue; and, Colonies Chris, who has done thousands of AWB-based edits on this issue. All of the preceding editors have done multiple reversions of the articles in question and should be blocked under the same (dubious) rationale. By the way, there is no editor on English-language Misplaced Pages who has done more to improve tennis biographies than myself (check out my tens-of-thousands of edits). And there are few editors besides myself who would try to uphold the core policy of Misplaced Pages concerning consensus in the face of so much hostility and incivility from the preceding editors and a few others, despite my never being hostile or incivil to them in return. This block proves that none of that matters; therefore, I am retiring from Misplaced Pages, effective immediately. But before I go, it's worth noting that the blocking administrator himself (assuming gender here) is making disruptively blind reverts of my edits, too. See, for example, Margaret Osborne duPont, Jimmy Evert, Lawson Duncan, Fred Hagist, Gigi Fernandez, Pat DuPre, Brian Dunn, Herb Fitzgibbon, and Herbert Flam. Perhaps he should be blocked.... Tennis expert (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Dude. What a totally pointless issue to retire over. Don't be a diva. MickMacNee (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)