Misplaced Pages

User talk:Theironminer: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:31, 16 June 2014 editSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,930 edits →QoS← Previous edit Revision as of 04:36, 16 June 2014 edit undoSchroCat (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,930 edits →QoSNext edit →
Line 19: Line 19:


::Who gives a monkeys about RT, and what does that have to do with Misplaced Pages? There are many, many things wrong with RT, and We avoid the worst excesses of it, which includes how they describe the utterly brainless way they describe reviews. I see you have not bothered to read ]: you need to do so, or you may find yourself blocked for edit warring very soon. Briefly, you one of your edits is reverted, you '''DISCUSS''' on the article's talk page, rather than arrogantly trying to force your preferred version onto the page. I expect that someone will revert you shortly, because it's a bad edit, and if you decide to edit war yet again, I'll take great delight in reporting you in the appropriate forum. - ] (]) 04:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC) ::Who gives a monkeys about RT, and what does that have to do with Misplaced Pages? There are many, many things wrong with RT, and We avoid the worst excesses of it, which includes how they describe the utterly brainless way they describe reviews. I see you have not bothered to read ]: you need to do so, or you may find yourself blocked for edit warring very soon. Briefly, you one of your edits is reverted, you '''DISCUSS''' on the article's talk page, rather than arrogantly trying to force your preferred version onto the page. I expect that someone will revert you shortly, because it's a bad edit, and if you decide to edit war yet again, I'll take great delight in reporting you in the appropriate forum. - ] (]) 04:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

::By the way, this is an official notification of ], the bright-line rule regarding edit warring. You are at the limits of reverting with you edit warring, and you have not bothered to even try and discuss the situation on the talk page. - ] (]) 04:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:36, 16 June 2014

Theironminer, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi Theironminer! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

QoS

1. See WP:BRD and stop edit warring on the QoS article: use the talk page if you want to reach a consensus. 2. "Mixed" covers everything: positive, negative and, well, mixed. It's utterly pointless and stupid to put mixed and positive: it covers the same points. This has been discussed numerous times in various places and at the film project, so if you want to change the consensus, you have to try and reach consensus through DISCUSSION, not brainlessly edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I consider your choice of words, saying I "brainlessly" edit the article. According to rotten tomatoes, any movie with 57%-69% means mixed-TO-positive reviews, meaning reviews were originally mixed and later became more positive. The consensus on the site called the film, positively, "an impressive entry to the Bond canon." I suggest you leave the article with the mixed-to-positive statement and not make a big deal about it. Just move on. - theironminer (talk). 12:10 AM, 16 June, 2014 (UTC)
Who gives a monkeys about RT, and what does that have to do with Misplaced Pages? There are many, many things wrong with RT, and We avoid the worst excesses of it, which includes how they describe the utterly brainless way they describe reviews. I see you have not bothered to read WP:BRD: you need to do so, or you may find yourself blocked for edit warring very soon. Briefly, you one of your edits is reverted, you DISCUSS on the article's talk page, rather than arrogantly trying to force your preferred version onto the page. I expect that someone will revert you shortly, because it's a bad edit, and if you decide to edit war yet again, I'll take great delight in reporting you in the appropriate forum. - SchroCat (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
By the way, this is an official notification of WP:3RR, the bright-line rule regarding edit warring. You are at the limits of reverting with you edit warring, and you have not bothered to even try and discuss the situation on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)