| Revision as of 19:51, 21 May 2009 editDaedalus969 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,809 edits →May 2009: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:06, 21 May 2009 edit undoAmicaveritas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users505 edits →May 2009Next edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| :Well, given that you had attacked more than one editor, possibly in the post, with definitely more than one insult, not to mention you were saying what their political motivations were, I lost good faith with you. That level four is for assuming bad faith.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 06:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC) | :Well, given that you had attacked more than one editor, possibly in the post, with definitely more than one insult, not to mention you were saying what their political motivations were, I lost good faith with you. That level four is for assuming bad faith.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 06:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::Despite whatever reasons you may have, calling someone a liar and hypocrite are not allowed, '''period'''. It doesn't matter if he actually is lying, you are not allowed to call names here.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 19:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC) | ::Despite whatever reasons you may have, calling someone a liar and hypocrite are not allowed, '''period'''. It doesn't matter if he actually is lying, you are not allowed to call names here.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 19:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ] As far as I can see, this is a new editor - who may not be entirely familiar of the wikiways. As a reasonably new editor who in all good faith fell foul of a policy or two initial, perhaps a lighter approach than a level 4 warning and an immediate assumption of bad faith would be appropriate? | |||
| Stargnoc, if you have strong opinions on a subject focus on debate on the article talk page and only on content. Don't allow yourself to be drawn into personal comments no matter how warranted you may feel it is. Opposing views can be equally valid and it is through debate we hope to obtain concensus. YOu may find ] & {{#if:Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests|to ]}} of use. ] (]) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:06, 21 May 2009
May 2009
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Dædαlus 05:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, given that you had attacked more than one editor, possibly in the post, with definitely more than one insult, not to mention you were saying what their political motivations were, I lost good faith with you. That level four is for assuming bad faith.— Dædαlus 06:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Despite whatever reasons you may have, calling someone a liar and hypocrite are not allowed, period. It doesn't matter if he actually is lying, you are not allowed to call names here.— Dædαlus 19:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:BITE As far as I can see, this is a new editor - who may not be entirely familiar of the wikiways. As a reasonably new editor who in all good faith fell foul of a policy or two initial, perhaps a lighter approach than a level 4 warning and an immediate assumption of bad faith would be appropriate?
Stargnoc, if you have strong opinions on a subject focus on debate on the article talk page and only on content. Don't allow yourself to be drawn into personal comments no matter how warranted you may feel it is. Opposing views can be equally valid and it is through debate we hope to obtain concensus. YOu may find dispute resolution & to Misplaced Pages:Editor assistance/Requests of use. Amicaveritas (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)