| Revision as of 20:02, 28 January 2009 editA Nobody (talk | contribs)53,000 edits →January 2009: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:06, 28 January 2009 edit undoKizor (talk | contribs)Administrators13,646 edits →January 2009: blockedNext edit → | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
| ::::It is hardly "extreme" when other editors have attempted ] as a guideline before me. There are many viewpoints that editors have argued regarding inclusion criteria, including the far end on deletion side as well. Why only comment to me, but not to them? And to say I only argue to delete hoaxes is inaccurate, as in the past I have argued to delete how tos, pedophilic articles, recipes, etc. I probably argue to delete hoaxes more than anything else, but in the over fifty AfDs I have argued to delete in, there are several that I argued to delete for reasons other than being a hoax. In any event, it is strange for an IP's first edit to be an attack on another editor, especially mentioning a username not used in four odd months. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 20:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | ::::It is hardly "extreme" when other editors have attempted ] as a guideline before me. There are many viewpoints that editors have argued regarding inclusion criteria, including the far end on deletion side as well. Why only comment to me, but not to them? And to say I only argue to delete hoaxes is inaccurate, as in the past I have argued to delete how tos, pedophilic articles, recipes, etc. I probably argue to delete hoaxes more than anything else, but in the over fifty AfDs I have argued to delete in, there are several that I argued to delete for reasons other than being a hoax. In any event, it is strange for an IP's first edit to be an attack on another editor, especially mentioning a username not used in four odd months. Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 20:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| It's kind of odd to be described as an obvious sock, and yet still get (hilariously poorly formatted) templated warnings. Either I'm new here or I'm not, make up your minds. ] (]) 11:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | It's kind of odd to be described as an obvious sock, and yet still get (hilariously poorly formatted) templated warnings. Either I'm new here or I'm not, make up your minds. ] (]) 11:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Very well, here's a decision. This is clearly not the only avenue to Misplaced Pages to the person editing from this IP. He has used this one for nothing but harassment, knows that the target takes issue with it, does it for no constructive end but for his own pleasure, and has shown no intention to change after being asked nicely. Whatever the sum total of his edits is like, it seems reasonable to do this to this particular subsection: | |||
| <div style="clear: both"></div>]'''You have been {{#if:2 weeks||temporarily}} ] from editing Misplaced Pages {{#if:2 weeks|for a period of 2 weeks}} as a result of your {{#if:|disruptive edits to ]|disruptive edits}}.''' You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that ] (including page blanking or addition of ]), ], deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, ]; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning ] and ] will not be tolerated.<!-- Template:Test5 --> --]<font color="black">]</font><font color="green">]</font> 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:06, 28 January 2009
Welcome
|
Welcome to Misplaced Pages Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Someone using this IP address has made unhelpful edits, which have been reverted. If you did this, in the future please try to contribute in a more constructive manner. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Misplaced Pages, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you. If you need help see:
Here are a few more good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and timestamp. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place Again, welcome! A Nobody 04:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC) |
Calling people out
It's a tad hypocritical to call someone out for name-changes on an anonymous IP, and it's pretty obvious you know better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
January 2009
Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: fiction discussion. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.
- If you identify yourself as having extreme views, you're stuck with criticism of your extreme views. Jack Layton shouldn't be offended when called a socialist. 71.17.30.155 (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't identify myself as having "extreme" views. I no longer even have an inclusionist userbox and I have argued to delete more articles now than I have seen a number of my so-called critics argue to keep. Neither I nor anyone else commented about other editors in that thread, because the point is a request for comment on the proposed policy, not on other editors. Mocking editors, especially in lieu of the note on the top of my talk page regarding an old username that I haven't gone by in months now, adds nothing constructive to that discussion on the proposed policy. It is a distraction, if not provocative. And it is incredibly unlikely that a new user would start editing by antagonizing another editor with his/her first edit. Thus, as A Man In Black points out, it is ironic/hypocritical to comment on someone who changed names when an IP is being used with a singular purpose in an obviously unconstructive fashion. If I and everyone else is expected to not use socks accounts or IPs, then we all hope you can/will do the same. Sincerely, --A Nobody 11:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody describes their own views as extreme. You've espoused the view that any article that isn't blatantly false shouldn't be deleted ever, something trivially verified by looking in your edit history. That's an extreme view, and it's not one any reasonable iteration of WP:FICT can hope to accommodate. 71.17.30.155 (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is hardly "extreme" when other editors have attempted non-notability as a guideline before me. There are many viewpoints that editors have argued regarding inclusion criteria, including the far end on deletion side as well. Why only comment to me, but not to them? And to say I only argue to delete hoaxes is inaccurate, as in the past I have argued to delete how tos, pedophilic articles, recipes, etc. I probably argue to delete hoaxes more than anything else, but in the over fifty AfDs I have argued to delete in, there are several that I argued to delete for reasons other than being a hoax. In any event, it is strange for an IP's first edit to be an attack on another editor, especially mentioning a username not used in four odd months. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody describes their own views as extreme. You've espoused the view that any article that isn't blatantly false shouldn't be deleted ever, something trivially verified by looking in your edit history. That's an extreme view, and it's not one any reasonable iteration of WP:FICT can hope to accommodate. 71.17.30.155 (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't identify myself as having "extreme" views. I no longer even have an inclusionist userbox and I have argued to delete more articles now than I have seen a number of my so-called critics argue to keep. Neither I nor anyone else commented about other editors in that thread, because the point is a request for comment on the proposed policy, not on other editors. Mocking editors, especially in lieu of the note on the top of my talk page regarding an old username that I haven't gone by in months now, adds nothing constructive to that discussion on the proposed policy. It is a distraction, if not provocative. And it is incredibly unlikely that a new user would start editing by antagonizing another editor with his/her first edit. Thus, as A Man In Black points out, it is ironic/hypocritical to comment on someone who changed names when an IP is being used with a singular purpose in an obviously unconstructive fashion. If I and everyone else is expected to not use socks accounts or IPs, then we all hope you can/will do the same. Sincerely, --A Nobody 11:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It's kind of odd to be described as an obvious sock, and yet still get (hilariously poorly formatted) templated warnings. Either I'm new here or I'm not, make up your minds. 71.17.30.155 (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Very well, here's a decision. This is clearly not the only avenue to Misplaced Pages to the person editing from this IP. He has used this one for nothing but harassment, knows that the target takes issue with it, does it for no constructive end but for his own pleasure, and has shown no intention to change after being asked nicely. Whatever the sum total of his edits is like, it seems reasonable to do this to this particular subsection:
You have been blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for a period of 2 weeks as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. --Kizor 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)