| Revision as of 18:27, 18 July 2012 editWtshymanski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users76,111 edits easy to use edit format strikes again; even 40,000 edits aren't enough to learn the right way to type ;can't get bullets to work right in blockquote either← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:11, 27 November 2024 edit undoWtshymanski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users76,111 edits rv old notice Undid revision 1258260759 by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)Tags: Replaced Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | == Get rid of the banner == | ||
| This page has been edited. | |||
| ⚫ | Does this get rid of the banner? --] (]) 22:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| You have taken to deleting other editor's comments from article talk pages. This is a flagrant violation of ] and can lead to you being blocked on its own. I have also monitored the usual sarcastic edit summaries from you. It is clear that you have failed to heed the warning left on your talk page by an administrator. I have thus initiated the procedure to re-open the RfC against you and to request administator intervention. ] (]) 15:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ::It's only ''your'' (biased) opinion that one of the comments was off topic. I completely disagree (and so, it would seem does ]). The other comment that you blanked was a legitimate response to an editor other than you who thought the switch was invented around the year 2000, so it wasn't even any of your damned business. ] (]) 17:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Really? You do read English, don't you? You must read English, you've called yourself an authority on English usage at least once. Did you read the sentence in the switch talk page? <blockquote>Somewhere around Y2k, as part of researching the history of telegraphy and early electrical communication, I did an extensive Web search using all available search engines in a quest to identify the inventor of the first electrical switch.</blockquote> How did you interpret that as saying the switch was invented in 2000? Do you know what article talk pages are for? And profanity is against the rules, too, isn't it? --] (]) 17:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == July 2012 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for persistent ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-vblock --> | |||
| :Wtshymanski, this block is a reaction to your repeated removals of the comments of others from article talk pages, in violation of ], when you must have known that this would incite controversy. Please read again, and take under consideration, the outcome of ]. Further combative conduct on your part is likely to result in a lengthy block. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, and contributors are expected to conduct themselves in a collegial manner. | |||
| :This is in reaction to a request for assistance on my talk page by {{user|DieSwartzPunkt}}. DieSwartzPunkt - and I am also copying this to your user page - your attitude is also unnecessarily aggressive and has likely contributed to the present escalation. In particular, you have made comments, that - while not so crass as to justify their blanking - were unnecessarily aggressive and fell far short of our required standards of collegiality (, . Please tone it down and engage with Wtshymanski, if necessary, in a strictly professional manner. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have responded on your talk page. ] (]) 18:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock|reason=The block is in error. WPL:TPO says in part that acceptable reasons for removing (not editing) other's comments from article talk pages include | |||
| <blockquote> * Removing prohibited material such as libel, personal details, or violations of copyright, living persons or banning policies. | |||
| * Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived. </blockquote> | |||
| It seems arbitrary to quote the talk page guidelines as a reason to block me when in fact the talk page guidelines expressly list the above cases of acceptable reasons to delete off-topic and abrasive material from an article talk page. It's also a well-established custom that article talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not carrying on unrelated disputes. ] (]) 18:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::: The user in question has a seemingly random dislike of me. The user in question has not been terribly collegial either, in several recent edits. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles and not for harassing other users. I'm disappointed that some editors canvass to raise a posse against those who have a legitimate difference of opinion. But this is the way Misplaced Pages runs. --] (]) 18:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:11, 27 November 2024
Get rid of the banner
Does this get rid of the banner? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)