User talk:Rotational: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:03, 8 May 2009 editRotational (talk \| contribs)9,031 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:06, 10 May 2009 edit undoRkitko (talk \| contribs)51,198 edits →[]: new sectionNext edit →
Line 222:		Line 222:
	The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Misplaced Pages articles{{#if:List of Southern African indigenous trees and woody lianes\|, as you did to ],}} without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-tdel4 --> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">]</span> 07:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)		The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Misplaced Pages articles{{#if:List of Southern African indigenous trees and woody lianes\|, as you did to ],}} without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-tdel4 --> <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">]</span> 07:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
	::Promises! Promises! If it is truly to be the last warning, I can only be grateful ] (]) 08:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)		::Promises! Promises! If it is truly to be the last warning, I can only be grateful ] (]) 08:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

			== ] ==
			Please refrain from creating cross-namespace redirects from the article namespace to your user subpages. They are candidates for ]. If you believe the articles you've created in your subpages are ready to 'go live' in the article namespace, you can ] them into their proper names. Cheers, ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 12:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:06, 10 May 2009

Infobox
I do not necessarily believe that "Infoboxes must burn in hell", but I appreciate the problem: A box promises to contain, and things that can't be neatly contained can't be put in boxes. A box suggests "this is the real deal," and if the real deal could be put in a box, then there would be no need for articles. A box says, "Here is your PowerPoint bullet point list, so you can find all the world reduced to a reductive summary; please do not strive to understand complexity, for that is for suckers." A box says, "Misplaced Pages is just like your primary school text book: full of colors and 'bites' of infotainment." A box says, "I, the box maker, have just pissed all over this article and written a counter-article, and it's short, so read it instead." A box may be found useful by some people, indeed. We call those people "non-readers." (Utgard Loki, at Giano's Talkpage, 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I do not necessarily believe that "Infoboxes must burn in hell", but I appreciate the problem:
A box promises to contain, and things that can't be neatly contained can't be put in boxes. A box suggests "this is the real deal," and if the real deal could be put in a box, then there would be no need for articles. A box says, "Here is your PowerPoint bullet point list, so you can find all the world reduced to a reductive summary; please do not strive to understand complexity, for that is for suckers." A box says, "Misplaced Pages is just like your primary school text book: full of colors and 'bites' of infotainment." A box says, "I, the box maker, have just pissed all over this article and written a counter-article, and it's short, so read it instead." A box may be found useful by some people, indeed. We call those people "non-readers." (Utgard Loki, at Giano's Talkpage, 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning

You appear to have returned to edit warring; please be cautious. Also, this edit is inexplicable: you have reverted back in an inuse tag that is obviously inappropriate, and used an incivil edit summary, for which I am also warning you William M. Connolley (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your observation and recommend short and decisive measures. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The user produces valuable content, but has a history of conflict over formatting; recent example
The user has ideas for improvement, some of which have been implemented, but often refuses to engage in productive discussions.
The user seems to have personal grievances with other solid contributors, but some previous attempts to mediate this have been inadequate.
There is a problem with disruption, but the user also appears to be attempting to seek a resolution. (recent edit)
The user has a very low opinion of me, and less of others, but I value the contributions.
I can't resolve the problem, but I am certain that a block is not the solution.
Thanks, cygnis insignis 21:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There are far too many threats and no attempts at looking into the roots of the problem and searching for an equitable resolution. Despite appearances I am trying to improve Misplaced Pages. People like Rkitko, Debresser and Jenuk1985, constantly baying for blood, do not exactly help matters. Rotational (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I believe that. ~~And that would appear to be the situation~~. Regards, cygnis insignis 10:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Comment struck after user's later revision - cygnis insignis 04:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. ciao Rotational (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Headings

I do apologise Rotational that I haven't had the time to work with you on putting forward a proposal to look into the use of lines in headings. It is on my list of things I'd like to do, but - to be realistic - I may not get around to doing it for some time. There are a number of other things on my list, and some have a higher personal priority, yet are also delayed. It would certainly be quicker if you went ahead and did it. I would support you. You would need to put together a proposal and put it on the talkpage of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, and then advertise it in various places, such as on Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion, Misplaced Pages:Community portal, and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals), with a link to your proposal on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. In the meantime it would really assist the proposal if you refrained from implementing it before it has consensus. You are annoying some editors who would then speak out against the proposal and muddy the water by saying you are disruptive. SilkTork * 00:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

He is very disruptive, see Barnard 68. He should be blocked right away! Debresser (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

I've just looked at Barnard 68. It is plain that (a) multiple people are reverting you and (b) you are re-adding text of a general nature that applies to all dark clouds that is present in the dark cloud page. It isn't at all clear to me why you are doing this. Having looked at the talk page, I can see your "opponents" explaining why they have removed the text; I see nothing from you explaining why you are restoring it. Your edit comments to the article Come on!! Stop your nonsense!! etc are similarly unhelpful and indeed incivil.

But to come to the point: don't restore the text without explaining yourself and making some attempt to build consensus, or I will block you William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

When I started this article I felt that the paragraph, which Debresser has repeatedly removed, gave information which the average reader may find helpful. This particular paragraph was removed by Debresser and copied across to the Dark cloud page - this was done without consensus or discussion and when I suggested discussion before removal, an outburst from Debresser followed. I don't recall that you issued any warning to him and your lack of evenhandedness is disturbing. Rotational (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Pasted from SilkTork's Discussion page:

Advice needed

Hi SilkTork, I'm sorry to see that you've pulled out of dispute resolution although you're probably wise in managing your ulcers! I hope this problem will merit your attention. I think that Rkitko felt the arbitration talks which you managed had fizzled out, and he returned to his former habit of following my contributions and changing them to his interpretation of the MoS. Even worse, he made an ANI out of it and stirred up a whole lot of editors who had nothing better to do. My attempt at reverting the edits got me a 24-hour block for "edit warring". I feel pretty bitter about this, since I follow my old policy of not changing the layout of any article I did not start. However, some editors are not interested in extending the same courtesy. I now find that Rkitko and a few of his symphatisers are altering articles before I've even finished writing them and riding roughshod over 'in use' templates - see the latest article Katey Walter which I started last night and has already come in for a fair amount of hacking-about. I really am at a loss and would welcome some positive input. ciao Rotational (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look and let you know. SilkTork * 12:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind passing this on to another mediator, linking the relevant discussions? Thanks, cygnis insignis 22:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the message I left for Rotational. I'm talking about a proposal to remove the lines on second level section headings. This is not a mediation issue. It's not an issue I feel strongly about, but I do see the sense of Rotational's observation that the lines do give a somewhat primary school feel to an article. It is a somewhat unusual layout convention, and one that is not followed by most publications, including our nearest rivals citizendium, encyclopedia.com, britannica.com, etc. It is unfortunate that Rotational's manner of dealing with this issue is to be confrontational about it, and to enrage editors, but that doesn't detract from the main point of the issue itself, which is that we have by default and inertia landed ourselves with a layout style that is aesthetically and stylistically less attractive than it would be without the lines. SilkTork * 22:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I see above that congratulations are in order, and my sympathy if it relates to your first example. I'm asking to move this on because it would obviously be a very low priority in comparison. I have not misunderstood your message, I'm hoping that a solution to a problem going back some eighteen months can be realised. It has been suggested, with supporting evidence, that this has been going longer than that; I suspect it will return even after the impending indef block. It is for this reason that I have proposed that such a block be avoided, and that he is correctly engaged by the community. I can show numerous examples of how casual comments regarding aesthetics of formatting, bikeshedding in comparison to the more substantive issue, have been used by the user to endorse an ongoing campaign of disruption and vendetta. It is the perfect model for how to wage such a campaign and engage in personal attacks.

The term 'mediator' is one you used when you decided to initiate the process, though I believe that the scope should have been mediation between 'Rotational' and the community rather than virtually compelling a trusted and valuable user to engage in subpaged discussion. The user has advertised that 'mediation' in edit summaries in his recent expeditions to other areas of our document. So please forward this to another who you know and trust to bring about a resolution. Thanks, cygnis insignis 06:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have read both your messages several times and I'm still not clear on what you expect from me! I am rather tired and distracted at the moment, so forgive me if it's my fault in not being able to read properly.

I am not currently mediating anyone or anything. I acted briefly and unsuccessfully as a mediator between Rotational and Rkitko. There was a conflict between the two of them. The conflict remains, and I understand the reasons for the conflict and have sympathies with both parties. However, from out of the discussions that took place I indicated to Rotational that I would be prepared to assist him with putting forward some of his proposals as this might focus him away from the disruptive behaviour and toward consensus building. Though this grew out of an informal mediation process, it was not in itself a mediation process, but assistance from one Wikipedian to another, and the closest term one might apply to it might be mentoring - though that term in itself carries a formal baggage that I did not and still do not wish to place on this struggling donkey. I have expressed to Rotational that some of his ideas I don't like, and feel would not be accepted by the community, but that removing the ruler line from the H2 section header is one I do like, and that it would be interesting to explore it. So mediation has been left behind, but out of that came a personal commitment to assisting Rotational with a matter that I do have an interest in.

Given that background, what exactly is it you want me to do? Bear with me and try to explain yourself more fully. My understanding is that you feel that some form of formal mediation has taken place with files and assessments kept in a buff folder which I can hand over to some grey-eyed examiner. I can assure you that what happened was an informal process designed to assist two Wikipedians in conflict. Nobody was compelled to do anything, and I'm saddened that you got that impression.

To make it absolutely clear. I am NOT mediating. I have nothing to hand over. I do, however, have a personal (though minor) interest in the matter of the H2 heading, and I have made a informal commitment to Rotational to provide some assistance in that matter. My time on Misplaced Pages is currently limited, however I am reluctant to break a commitment.

I do not feel I can be of assistance to you. Though I may be misunderstanding what it is you want from me. If you have some form of interest in getting involved with any aspect of this matter, then please do so. You don't need my permission. Regards SilkTork * 09:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

personal attack

I removed your recent personal attacks. You have been warned about this on numerous occasions, and I now think that a block would be an appropriate means of reducing the disruption. cygnis insignis 03:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You certainly have a sweeping interpretation of incivility and personal attacks - Misplaced Pages can only benefit from your sagacity. Why did you not add your vote to those of Rkitko and Jenuk1985 to show your solidarity? Rotational (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The following section pasted from here

Template:Unreferenced-inline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template duplicates function of {{unreferenced}} and was only created to be placed at the bottom of articles (e.g. on Mary Maytham Kidd), which goes against the standardization for clean up templates at WP:TMC. Rkitko 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep Since when has Rkitko become psychic and been able to divine ulterior motives for the use of templates. This template, in common with many other in-line templates, was designed to be less in-your-face than the boxed version. As for placement, it can be put anywhere in the article, even though WP:TMC states quite clearly If too many tags are piled at the top of an article, the article starts being eclipsed by the tags, especially with short or stub articles. Please try to consolidate them into the ((articleissues)) template as much as possible.
In keeping with a lot of Rkitko's recent editing, this has more than just a hint of personal vendetta. Rotational (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please be civil. This has nothing to do with you. I just don't see the point of this template and I don't believe there are any other clean up templates that are "in-line" like this. The clean up templates were recently standardized, and the quote from WP:TMC has more to do with a suggestion to use {{articleissues}} than suggesting to place the tags elsewhere. I see no need for an in-line version of this template. --Rkitko 20:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I see nothing in my comments above which can be construed as uncivil. You have already made perfectly clear your abhorrence of anything which is not boxed or lined, so there is no need to belabour it. Rotational (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

point

Using an article to make a point, such as you did with Mary Maytham Kidd, is highly disruptive. You have deliberately added unreferenced content to main space, apparently witholding your source to 'demonstrate' the inline unreferenced tag. cygnis insignis 04:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive? Absolute twaddle. Are you becoming psychic like Rkitko, privy to my motives and desperate to foment unrest? If you need sources and references, you are permitted to add them yourself. ciao Rotational (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please add your reference for this article. cygnis insignis 15:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless you are making stuff up, you must have used sources. The onus is on you to add them, you cannot feign ignorance of our communities expectations regarding this serious matter. cygnis insignis 14:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have given my source in the edit summary at Walter Hood Fitch, something you appear to be unwilling to do ↑, simply reverting and saying "please discuss" is disingenuous. You have given no rationale, ignored numerous warnings from the community on tendentious editing, and refused to discuss anything that does accord with your personal and, quite frankly, grotesque approach to layout. The matter above is even more serious, why have you ignored these requests? cygnis insignis 08:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources "rule". cygnis insignis 11:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If only they did...that would be ever so nice... You still haven't responded to the following on the Walter Fitch talk page, or are you pleading the Fifth Amendment :
You say "the text should precede the image in the lead", and so it did here - why did you find it necessary to change it to this? The image of Victoria regia might be interesting historically even though it appears drab on the page. Even so, it was included in this version - why did you change it? Rotational (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Note

Hi, just a quick note regarding this. The MOS advises against bold font used as a substitute for section headers. Also, please refrain from repetitive reverting. Regards, –Juliancolton 19:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

MOS final warning

Hi. Re and similar. I'm afraid you are just going to have to live with the MOS, unless and until you can get it changed. In the meantime, reverting against MOS is disruptive editing and if you do it again (and someone complains; I have no intention of monitoring your edits) I will block you for it. This is wikipedia, not your personal encyclopaedia, you have to live by the rules William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And hi to you - this is about layout guidelines and not policy, on the interpretation of which there is widespread disagreement. I think you may have missed my response to your previous warning, so let me repeat some of it here

Misplaced Pages:Don't smother conflict. Having looked at the talk page, I can see your "opponents" explaining why they have removed the text; I see nothing from you explaining why you are restoring it. Kindly see here. You tend to make snap-judgements without looking thoroughly into the background of the dispute - blocking and threats of blocking are decidedly unhelpful and getting dangerously close to an abuse of your power and privileges. When I started this article I felt that the paragraph, which Debresser has repeatedly removed, gave information which the average reader may find helpful. This particular paragraph was removed by Debresser and copied across to the Dark cloud page - this was done without consensus or discussion and when I suggested discussion before removal, an outburst from Debresser followed. I don't recall that you issued any warning to him and your lack of evenhandedness is disturbing. Rotational (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I also didn't see any warning issued to Jenuk1985, his being the other party in the "edit war", or does the fact that he was warring in an "honourable" cause exempt him from censure? As I've said before, being selectively heavyhanded might make you feel better, but it does nothing to help solve the problem. ciao Rotational (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you recently tried to give Chersky (research station) a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Cherskii. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Misplaced Pages has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history. I am now in the process of correctly completing the move on your behalf. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You are too kind. I am aware of the move feature, but found that the page "Cherskii" had been changed to a redirect page, thereby making a simple move impossible. Rotational (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If you get into the same situation again, you can still use the page move feature, it will move to a redirect page so long as it doesn't have any previous edits (which in this situation it wouldn't have). If the target page does have significant history (e.g. as it did when I came to it (you adding content and then me removing it), you just need to tag the target page with {{db-move}}, an administrator will come along and delete the page allowing you to move as normal. I hope that made sense! Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Slipping back into old habits

I'm concerned that you are slipping back into your old habits regarding section headings, for example here. It also appears that you are trying to start an edit war for the sake of it here (For reference, the edit summary provided in the previous edit had made perfect sense). I strongly suggest you stop and think before making such edits, as you must be aware you are on your final warning already? Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Strangely not all my old habits are bad. It seems that it is now Cygnis' turn to be provocative and disregard common sense in his editing. Since when are images facing out of a page acceptable? I also strongly suggest that you add Cygnis to your list of people needing gratuitous warnings. Please see the Walter Hood Fitch talkpage. Rotational (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion and interpretation of the MoS is that the lead image should always be on the right. I have asked for clarification on that matter, still awaiting a response. Contrary to belief, I don't want to see you blocked, you do have a lot of very constructive contributions to make, but between them you do have issues. If you can work out to sort out those issues, we are on to a winner! You are not perfect, I am not perfect, nobody is perfect. Please take peoples suggestions into account. I hope you have taken note of what has been said regarding section headings, and are working towards either a) proposing an MoS amendment, or b) keeping in line with the MoS in your edits. If a template doesn't do what you want it to do, rather than creating a duplicate, consider editing the original (though if it is potentially controversial, seek consensus first). Please please (please) try to take everyone's opinions on board, we are all here to work together, afterall! Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're acting in good faith, so please assume that I am trying to do the same. Perfection is not something I lay claim to, but I can tell a perverse edit as well as the next person. Certainly I listen to suggestions, some are extremely helpful, some are downright idiotic and most fall somewhere in between. The people who put my back up most are those who are not open to anything new and will blindly revert, threaten and block because of a slight deviation from the norm. It is only by trying new ideas that WP can evolve into something better - like you and me it is not yet perfect.....ciao Rotational (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Botanist-inline2

Template:Botanist-inline2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Hesperian 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why bother - with your leading the discussion, the outcome is assured. Rotational (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Eucalyptus flocktoniae, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. And, by the way, where are your WP:SOURCES cygnis insignis 11:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for displaying remarkable tact and common sense - you are an invaluable member of the community. ciao Rotational (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Walter Hood Fitch, you will be blocked from editing. cygnis insignis 16:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your warning - after a few years at WP I had been blissfully unaware of WP policy until you pointed it out. Have you found time yet to reply to my questions? ciao Rotational (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rotational. The above seems to be an ironic reply. Since you are trying to do good work here, I hope you will slow down the pace of reverts somewhat. It looks as though you were edit-warring on the style of heading to be used for 'References' at Abraham Bogardus. Fighting against the style rules used on all other Misplaced Pages articles is unlikely to win fans for your viewpoint. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston, Thank you for your cautionary note. This "war" is not about winning popularity contests, but rather an attempt to introduce style to a clique of rabid conservatives and pharisees. It is a forlorn battle against entrenched mob rule which is grandly styled "consensus". Some of these are people who would not know aesthetics if you handed it to them on a skewer - do see the history and discussion at Walter Hood Fitch for the latest demonstration. ciao Rotational (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Rotational. You have new messages at Papa November's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please do not continue to make disruptive edits which contradict the Manual of Style as you did with Gertrude Elizabeth Blood. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I do apologise for alarming you with my vandalism on the above page which apparently caused widespread disruption. I hope you soon recover from the trauma of the incident. ciao Rotational (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that one day I'll get over that trauma. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The trauma apparently didn't go away and found its way to the Administrators' noticeboard where I was called "subtly" disruptive.....Rotational (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D}

This editor has some serious civility issues, and refuses to follow various core MoS guidelines, he has been warned more than a handful of times on his talk page, yet he still continues to edit in the same vein. He does have a history (and a block) for edit warring regarding his interpretation of the MoS, but no longer seems to war on the same scale. I have compiled a few diffs below to illustrate my points.

Civility issues: blatant inappropriate sarcasm, inappropriate comments, biting another editor, inappropriate sarcasm, more inappropriate sarcasm, attack towards other editors, attack towards myself

Not adhering to the MoS despite many warnings from several users including yourself: , , , ,

A block may probably inappropriate at this point, but how long should an editor be allowed to be so subtly disruptive before some form of action is taken? Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not very long, at least. I'll gently leave a note. Nothing to make one quake in their boots, as it isn't anything too bad; and to be fair, you've returned the sarcastic manner a few times. See his talk page for more, I guess. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 14:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I do apologise for my replies, with hindsight it probably wasn't the best way to handle things, I should have really noted something here sooner rather than reply as I did. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I just hope you can work things out without things becoming messy. Let me know if you need anything else! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 15:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm isn't horrible, but please try to be civil and respect each others' concerns. Passing them off with snide remarks isn't going anywhere. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 14:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered — OrangeDog (talk • edits) 02:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that you only have one of the necessary qualities.....Rotational (talk) 06:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Magellanic Catalogue of Stars. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Do not repeatedly add warnings to a user talk page after they have been removed. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this. If you cannot work out your differences through discussion, seek dispute resolution. Patronising warnings on others' talk pages will just exacerbate the dispute and you may end up blocked. Please take a breather and come back when you're ready to discuss your disputes properly. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Rotational/Benjamin Maund

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Rotational/Benjamin Maund, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://adbonline.anu.edu.au/biogs/A050262b.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Rotational/Benjamin Maund and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Rotational/Benjamin Maund with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Rotational/Benjamin Maund.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Misplaced Pages article layout. For more information on Misplaced Pages's policies, see Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Rotational/Benjamin Maund saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Happy editing! - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. cygnis insignis 19:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow!! Thank you for the advice - I would never have guessed! I do think you have an obsession with the notion of blocking and probably need help. You are of course free to add sources yourself, and if you don't want to be aware of my poor contributions, I suggest you stop stalking my edits. ciao Rotational (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is your unwillingness to conform with policy related to the previous warning? I can see how it might be, it is not the first time you have been warned for copyvio. Although it turns up less frequently in your 'rotation' of petulant contributions, your carousel of disruption, you cannot be ignorant of the seriousness with which either issue is regarded. cygnis insignis 07:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Petulant! Carousel! Such big words coming from you. Has it ever occurred to you that you are choosing to make an issue of this.... Rotational (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to List of Southern African indigenous trees and woody lianes, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. cygnis insignis 07:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Promises! Promises! If it is truly to be the last warning, I can only be grateful Rotational (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects

Please refrain from creating cross-namespace redirects from the article namespace to your user subpages. They are candidates for speedy deletion. If you believe the articles you've created in your subpages are ready to 'go live' in the article namespace, you can move them into their proper names. Cheers, Rkitko 12:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)