| Revision as of 02:50, 26 November 2014 editCebr1979 (talk | contribs)10,843 edits →Consensus Talks← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:58, 26 November 2014 edit undoCebr1979 (talk | contribs)10,843 edits →Consensus TalksNext edit → | ||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
| ::::Asif you have to link it. We do not have to link policy. Though this editor will probably try to find one. I'm sick of the drama now. Everything you ranted on about proves you like a disruption. You got a level 2 for a couple of counts I oversaw before I got aggro with your level two. Quite in my right I believe. Unless you think you think you can break the rules and act against consensus until you get a level 1.. I saw you acting like a disrupter and handed out twinkle like I thought was deserved. Had I been online during the times, level 4 would have been a long distant memory!] <small>]</small> 02:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | ::::Asif you have to link it. We do not have to link policy. Though this editor will probably try to find one. I'm sick of the drama now. Everything you ranted on about proves you like a disruption. You got a level 2 for a couple of counts I oversaw before I got aggro with your level two. Quite in my right I believe. Unless you think you think you can break the rules and act against consensus until you get a level 1.. I saw you acting like a disrupter and handed out twinkle like I thought was deserved. Had I been online during the times, level 4 would have been a long distant memory!] <small>]</small> 02:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::"As if you have to link to it." 'Cause... like... "I say it happened so therefore it is" is how wikipedia operates? The two of you claim a discussion happened that completely negates I've now shown you two a combined three times and, just because you say it happened, but don't know when/where and can't prove it, that's enough? It's just "your way" now? And who is owning now? We'll see each other at ANI. You want to get there first? I've got pasta boiling.] (]) 02:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | :::::"As if you have to link to it." 'Cause... like... "I say it happened so therefore it is" is how wikipedia operates? The two of you claim a discussion happened that completely negates I've now shown you two a combined three times and, just because you say it happened, but don't know when/where and can't prove it, that's enough? It's just "your way" now? And who is owning now? We'll see each other at ANI. You want to get there first? I've got pasta boiling.] (]) 02:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| The template guidelines also link to any consensus conversations that have been used to create the template guideline and this phantom conversation you're claiming happened but won't prove isn't there.] (]) 02:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:58, 26 November 2014
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| Today is Thursday, 26 December 2024, and the current time is 18:28 (UTC/GMT). There are currently 6,930,247 articles. Purge this page for a new update. |
 | 5 albert square (talk) is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 | 5 albert square is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries. |  |
Hi everyone
Welcome to my talk page!
 | Read first! Welcome to my talk page! Questions, information, warnings? Say it here! Please post new topic at the bottom of this page, please sign your topic with ~~~~. And remember, Assume good faith! Click here to start a new topic. |
If you post a message here then please add this page to your watchlist as I will reply here. If I ask you a question on your talk page then please reply on your talk page as I will be watching it.
Finally please remember to sign your signature using the 
button.
GOCE February blitz wrapup
Guild of Copy Editors Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up
Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by |
Report
Hello there. Their appears to be an issue over at Taylor Hayes (The Bold and the Beautiful) - User:Arre has been in contact with me for sometime. I thought nothing of it initially but when I saw clear disregard of consensus I stepped in - but there editor reverted me and informed me that consensus does not matter on Misplaced Pages. So I thought it best to contact an admin as I have never heard such a strange dismissal of valid editing.Rain the 1 00:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
My talk page
Why are you making reverts on my talk page? I'm allowed to delete thoe messages. Please don't do that again.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please review and before ever taking action on my talk page again. I'm not used to having to instruct admins on proper policies.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies that you took offence at it, however looking at a blank page how is anyone going to know that you are on a level 2 warning? As far as I'm aware you're not allowed to remove official notices. Please also read WP:CIVIL as I took your comment to be very rude--5 albert square (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not on a level 2 warning.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies that you took offence at it, however looking at a blank page how is anyone going to know that you are on a level 2 warning? As far as I'm aware you're not allowed to remove official notices. Please also read WP:CIVIL as I took your comment to be very rude--5 albert square (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Consensus Talks
Are allowed in relevant places. One editor going to another editor's talk page because he or she knows the other one will agree with them... NOT allowed. If they want to discuss Taylor Hayes, they would need to gain a consensus on the Taylor Hayes talk page.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Consensus has already been gained. If you do not agree with the consensus then you need to raise another discussion at WP:SOAPS--5 albert square (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- And where was consensus gained?Cebr1979 (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are going to editors talk pages too. LOL. Seriously now, stop being naughty, accept you are acting against everyone and raise a discussion. If you would like Taylor to be exempt from the consensus, start the discussion. You cannot decide solely to do so. There is a consensus on WP:SOAPS and she falls into that category and we listen to that.Rain the 1 01:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't gone to other editors pages to "rally the troops" behind me, I've gone when I need to correct them on things they are doing wrong (like when the two of you took control of my talk page just minutes ago and broke wikipedia policies by making reverts and claimed I wasn't allowed to do something that I clearly am allowed to do)... "LOL" Cebr1979 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- As I have said above, as far as I'm aware you are not allowed to remove official notices, think about it, looking at your talk page as it is at the moment, how would anyone know you are on a level 2 warning? That's what I said above. Anyway, to overturn the consensus you will need to start a discussion at WP:SOAPS, as far as I can remember that's where the original decision was although I'm not 100% sure--5 albert square (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not on a level 2 warning. Hahaha. Good grief, man (or woman). "As far as I am aware???" No, you are aware that you were wrong, I just showed you that. As an admin, you should have already known. You also need to find that conversation or you can't quote it. I mean, "think about it."Cebr1979 (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are on a level 2 warning, that's what the symbol at the side means. I don't have to find any conversations, I know what the policy for WP:SOAPS is. Please start the discussion at WP:SOAPS--5 albert square (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just because some level was inappropriately written on my talk page, doesn't mean it's in effect. Raintheone needs an appropriate reason to skip level 1, which he or she doesn't have. I'm not on a level 2 anything. Why does an admin not know any of this???Cebr1979 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are on a level 2 warning and you were on a level 1 warning previously which was issued to you, if you look at the link I posted above. By removing both of these from your page you have acknowledged that you have read them and understood them --5 albert square (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- ohmygodohmygodohmygod One cannot just place multi-levels on someone's talk page at once. The very nature of that makes no sense. Like, I did not just give you levels 1, 2, and 3 all in one shot when you broke policies (and tried to state one of your own creation was real) on my talk page. Again... Why an I informing an admin of all of this?Cebr1979 (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are on a level 2 warning and you were on a level 1 warning previously which was issued to you, if you look at the link I posted above. By removing both of these from your page you have acknowledged that you have read them and understood them --5 albert square (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Just because some level was inappropriately written on my talk page, doesn't mean it's in effect. Raintheone needs an appropriate reason to skip level 1, which he or she doesn't have. I'm not on a level 2 anything. Why does an admin not know any of this???Cebr1979 (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- You are on a level 2 warning, that's what the symbol at the side means. I don't have to find any conversations, I know what the policy for WP:SOAPS is. Please start the discussion at WP:SOAPS--5 albert square (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not on a level 2 warning. Hahaha. Good grief, man (or woman). "As far as I am aware???" No, you are aware that you were wrong, I just showed you that. As an admin, you should have already known. You also need to find that conversation or you can't quote it. I mean, "think about it."Cebr1979 (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- As I have said above, as far as I'm aware you are not allowed to remove official notices, think about it, looking at your talk page as it is at the moment, how would anyone know you are on a level 2 warning? That's what I said above. Anyway, to overturn the consensus you will need to start a discussion at WP:SOAPS, as far as I can remember that's where the original decision was although I'm not 100% sure--5 albert square (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't gone to other editors pages to "rally the troops" behind me, I've gone when I need to correct them on things they are doing wrong (like when the two of you took control of my talk page just minutes ago and broke wikipedia policies by making reverts and claimed I wasn't allowed to do something that I clearly am allowed to do)... "LOL" Cebr1979 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm gonna take a dinner break. Correcting is tiring.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Warnings are issued for vandalism, editing against consensus, removing templates etc etc. They are not issued for making mistakes and apologising. I am going to tell you one final time, you need to start a discussion at WP:SOAPS. Thanks--5 albert square (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am going to ask you one final time... Where did this conversation take place that you claim happened? Because, with you being an admin, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that wikipedia does not operate on a "it happened, I can't prove it but, I say it happened so you have to believe it or else" type of foundation. I mean, I can find a template guideline that say's there are rules that need to be followed (like this little guy right here) and, unless you can show me that a consensus stating otherwise has already happened, there hasn't been a consensus. There's just been you saying, "I say so therefore it shall be" which is NOT allowed. Not even by admins.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I responded above and I told you I think it was on WP:SOAPS. I've already told you to start a discussion there. If you continue editing against consensus then an admin will block you for editing against consensus and it is possible that the block will be forever. By posting here and refusing to accept what I am telling you, all you are doing is providing them more proof that you won't abide by Misplaced Pages's rules because I'm telling you what to do and you're refusing to do it--5 albert square (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Asif you have to link it. We do not have to link policy. Though this editor will probably try to find one. I'm sick of the drama now. Everything you ranted on about proves you like a disruption. You got a level 2 for a couple of counts I oversaw before I got aggro with your level two. Quite in my right I believe. Unless you think you think you can break the rules and act against consensus until you get a level 1.. I saw you acting like a disrupter and handed out twinkle like I thought was deserved. Had I been online during the times, level 4 would have been a long distant memory!Rain the 1 02:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- "As if you have to link to it." 'Cause... like... "I say it happened so therefore it is" is how wikipedia operates? The two of you claim a discussion happened that completely negates the rules I've now shown you two a combined three times and, just because you say it happened, but don't know when/where and can't prove it, that's enough? It's just "your way" now? And who is owning now? We'll see each other at ANI. You want to get there first? I've got pasta boiling.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Asif you have to link it. We do not have to link policy. Though this editor will probably try to find one. I'm sick of the drama now. Everything you ranted on about proves you like a disruption. You got a level 2 for a couple of counts I oversaw before I got aggro with your level two. Quite in my right I believe. Unless you think you think you can break the rules and act against consensus until you get a level 1.. I saw you acting like a disrupter and handed out twinkle like I thought was deserved. Had I been online during the times, level 4 would have been a long distant memory!Rain the 1 02:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I responded above and I told you I think it was on WP:SOAPS. I've already told you to start a discussion there. If you continue editing against consensus then an admin will block you for editing against consensus and it is possible that the block will be forever. By posting here and refusing to accept what I am telling you, all you are doing is providing them more proof that you won't abide by Misplaced Pages's rules because I'm telling you what to do and you're refusing to do it--5 albert square (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am going to ask you one final time... Where did this conversation take place that you claim happened? Because, with you being an admin, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that wikipedia does not operate on a "it happened, I can't prove it but, I say it happened so you have to believe it or else" type of foundation. I mean, I can find a template guideline that say's there are rules that need to be followed (like this little guy right here) and, unless you can show me that a consensus stating otherwise has already happened, there hasn't been a consensus. There's just been you saying, "I say so therefore it shall be" which is NOT allowed. Not even by admins.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The template guidelines also link to any consensus conversations that have been used to create the template guideline and this phantom conversation you're claiming happened but won't prove isn't there.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)