| Revision as of 02:34, 27 October 2006 editRevolving Bugbear (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,923 edits →[]: blanking your talk page is considered poor wikiquette← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:42, 27 October 2006 edit undoWhiffle (talk | contribs)78 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| :In Hoary's defense, blanking your talk page without archiving it is considered poor Wikiquette. I think that's what he was trying to say. - ] 02:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | :In Hoary's defense, blanking your talk page without archiving it is considered poor Wikiquette. I think that's what he was trying to say. - ] 02:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Then it constitutes yet another instance of the plain fact that Wikipedian notions of civility are at variance with life on earth. ] 02:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:42, 27 October 2006
Whiffle is Bold!
Whiffle is Fearless!
Whiffle knows what you are thinking before you think you are thinking it!
Whiffle knew that you were thinking that!
Welcome to Misplaced Pages
Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Whiffle. Or, if you've been around awhile (which seems to me to be the case based on some of your comments), congratulations on your new registration.
You are freely welcome to edit Misplaced Pages articles, but it is imperative that you do so according to the rules. For starters I suggest the Five Pillars.
Please remember in editing that the aim of a tertiary source like Misplaced Pages is to accurately reflect the sources we cite. Sometimes this means including complicated concepts in articles that are about complicated things. There is a Misplaced Pages for simple explanations in uncomplicated language; that is Simple English Misplaced Pages.
Happy wiki'ing! If you have any questions I'd love to help. - Che Nuevara 04:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- "Simplicate and add lightness." - Colin Chapman
Yoshiaki Omura
I recommend you stop what you're doing and familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages policy.
Reverting a page four times within eleven hours is a violation of the three revert rule.
Statements like this:
- Do you have any actual verifiable facts to verify this man's claims or this journals claims. Or would an actual verifiable fact be too much to ask? You prefer word games and opinionating?
could very easily be interpreted as a refusal to assume good faith in other editors. Likewise, comments like this:
- Is this an entry or an excuse for a virtual circle jerk of people who are Look, I Are A Editor !!! wannabees? Fish, cut bait, or hang, bated, thrashing your wings pointlessly about. I'm not your mommy, and I don't want to spank you. I'm here to be right, not to be kind. Got the concept? Good !!!
are inappropriate; incivility and personal attacks are destructive to the Misplaced Pages atmosphere and are not allowed.
I cannot strongly enough recommend that you attempt to work with the other editors within the framework of 'pedia-acceptable behavior.
Peace - Che Nuevara 18:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- This deletion is surprising. Please read, digest and follow CheNuevara's sage advice. A request for evidence (in itself, an excellent request) needn't and usually shouldn't be accompanied by speculation on the reasons for the failure to provide evidence so far. -- Hoary 03:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Has it ever for even the briefest of moments occurred to you that your attitudes are condescending and offensive in the extreme? I will delete this when I deem it appropriate. If you find that problematic or offensive I suggest you not causally insult others all the while earnestly invoking WikiMantras as to civility. If you doubt the validity of my interpretation of the essential character of your remarks I suggest you offer comparable observations to someone in what passes for the real world and see what their evaluation of your attitude may be. Peace, indeed. Whiffle 00:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I would further think that editing another user's page might, incidentally, be considered an attempt at deliberate provocation and be judged in that light as to matters of good faith. Then again, perhaps I presume too much as to matters of consideration on the part of those who advise others as to appropriate consideration :-) Whiffle 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- In Hoary's defense, blanking your talk page without archiving it is considered poor Wikiquette. I think that's what he was trying to say. - Che Nuevara 02:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Then it constitutes yet another instance of the plain fact that Wikipedian notions of civility are at variance with life on earth. Whiffle 02:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)