| Revision as of 02:07, 9 February 2014 editIgnoranceisnotbliss19 (talk | contribs)31 edits Clearing up confusion with Jackmcbarn← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:17, 9 February 2014 edit undoIgnoranceisnotbliss19 (talk | contribs)31 edits More self-serving behavior from TenebraeNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| :How violative does one have to be that ''two'' editors ''independent of each other'', and without knowledge that the other was doing so, are both reporting you? How violative does one have to be to make a ''fifth'' revert after he's already been warned he's gone over the limit and made a bright-line violation? --] (]) 01:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC) | :How violative does one have to be that ''two'' editors ''independent of each other'', and without knowledge that the other was doing so, are both reporting you? How violative does one have to be to make a ''fifth'' revert after he's already been warned he's gone over the limit and made a bright-line violation? --] (]) 01:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| It is well known MANY people have MANY wikipedia accounts so cut the crap and please do not waste everyones valuable time with this nonsense Tenebrae. You and I, as well as everyone IN THE ENTIRE WORLD knows you are simply trying to control unfavorable information from reaching wikipedia pages and the masses. The simple and plain truth is that the information posted is ALREADY ATTACHED TO THE ARTICLE IN THE SOURCE FILE and it is merely an inconvenience for yours and others personal agenda. Lets keep it real, ok Tenebrae? Come back when truth is on your side. And can you stop being so angry, it seeps out of your words like puss out of an infection, when dealing with a newbie to wikipedia? | |||
| == What's the deal with the unsupported attacks? == | == What's the deal with the unsupported attacks? == | ||
Revision as of 02:17, 9 February 2014
Why are the edits, all relevent and factual in nature being removed for reasons that do not make any sense?
3RR notice
You have exceeded three reverts at Scarlett Johansson, and will be reported for edit-warring. I've only just signed back on, and another editor should have warned you earlier, but that is still no excuse for edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- I warned them; they removed the warning.
There is some very bizarre and hostile behavior going on here. I apologize for being new here. This is a very disturbed and angry place apparently! I myself am not in any "war" of any kind, though I certainly cannot speak for Tenebrae & Hullabaloo Wolfowitz. Any time a request was made expressing concern for the expanded information I had provided, all which was topical and sourced, I changed it to reflect their concerns and appease them. THAT is the reason for the amount of edits. To me, it is important to be accurate and precise and not abuse wikipedia policy to attack personally unfavorable information. These two never even bothered to contact me without generating a substantial amount of unsubstantiated vitriol in my direction simply by my attempting to placate their largely priggish behavior. If ANYTHING can be done to satisfy these two of their "gestapo mentality" I am all ears. I hope that it be understood that I have no intention of "warring" with any one and hope we can settle matters through communication instead of hostility as I have received from Tenebrae and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz simply over a misunderstanding. Thanks! And have a good day!
February 2014
Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Misplaced Pages and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Jack, I honestly have no idea on earth what you are talking about? Could you reference something specific that displays an "attack page", as you call it, if you are going to make such a wild and reckless assertion? Should you actually look at what has occurred, you will notice nothing of the sort. The entire edit consisted of expanding a poorly written and shoddily articulated article discussing the relationship between Oxfam and Scarlet Johanssen. Please be more careful next time before generating unneeded and unnecessary negativity throughout the community. Thanks! And Have a good day!
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- How violative does one have to be that two editors independent of each other, and without knowledge that the other was doing so, are both reporting you? How violative does one have to be to make a fifth revert after he's already been warned he's gone over the limit and made a bright-line violation? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
It is well known MANY people have MANY wikipedia accounts so cut the crap and please do not waste everyones valuable time with this nonsense Tenebrae. You and I, as well as everyone IN THE ENTIRE WORLD knows you are simply trying to control unfavorable information from reaching wikipedia pages and the masses. The simple and plain truth is that the information posted is ALREADY ATTACHED TO THE ARTICLE IN THE SOURCE FILE and it is merely an inconvenience for yours and others personal agenda. Lets keep it real, ok Tenebrae? Come back when truth is on your side. And can you stop being so angry, it seeps out of your words like puss out of an infection, when dealing with a newbie to wikipedia?
What's the deal with the unsupported attacks?
Hi whomever keeps attacking my comments! I apologize for being new on here and hope you do not hold that against me and wish to encourage the community to contribute to wikipedia, as a stated desire of its founder.
One small concern, what exactly do you do when someone is removing your comments for clearly unsubstantiated reasons or if you adjust to their complaints but are being labeled as in an "edit war"? For me, I am ALL about precision and accuracy and would hope that simple communication can resolve any issues and not require people to take up such hostilities. My door is always open and I am not "warring" with anyone. As you will see, if you take the time to look, I have addressed ANY AND ALL concerns with any editing I have done and will certainly continue to maintain this as a policy. Obviously the point is to get it right, right? Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any issues and hope that clears up any confusion. Thanks to one and all & have a good day!
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Three different editors were making neither unsubstantiated claims nor attacks. The minute an editor adds to a public statement the phrase "even though" followed by cherrypicked material chosen to support one's thesis, then that is original-research synthesis, which Misplaced Pages does not allow.
- I would also note that if you edit-war again after your block expires, an admin may chose to apply another, longer block. Take your concerns to the article's talk page, please.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for communicating directly this time Tenebrae! I find it much more helpful to the community at large this way and hope you will too in the future. Incidentally, the additional editing was done to satisfy your largely priggish and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz' unsubstantiated concerns. If you take a deep breathe and calm down for a minute, you will be certain to notice all of your concerns were being accounted for and there is no reason what-so-ever for you to be so openly hostile with people that are completely unfamiliar with wikipedia policy or, truth be known, if it really even apply. Thank you again for taking the time to publicly communicate your indefensible position and I look forward to future direct discussions with you!
Incidentally, the information was NOT cherry picked and was DIRECTLY FROM ALREADY UPLOADED MATERIAL OF A BBC INTERVIEW WITH OXFAM STATING THEIR POSITION ON A BLOCKADE OF ISRAEL. Please be a little more thorough next time before generating unsolicited and viscous attacks. Thanks again for your time and Have a good day!