| Revision as of 17:04, 2 September 2021 editPrimeBOT (talk | contribs)Bots2,048,701 editsm →Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion: Task 24: removal of a template following a TFDTag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:29, 5 February 2023 edit undoBD2412 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators2,452,144 editsm blank ancient IP talk page messagesTags: AWB Replaced | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| ==December 2012== | |||
| Please read ], particularly the section on "Edit summary dos and don'ts", and act accordingly. ] (]) 09:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ===Warning=== | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 18:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 18:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Before you get blocked for a combination of edit warring, disruptive editing, and incivility, please read the policy on using reliable sources, and then you'll understand why is not an invalid POV claim, and not a valid reason for reversion. ] (]) 20:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I can find sources that say that Sergeant Pepper is the Beatle's best album. I can find sources that say that War and Peace is the best book ever written. I can find sources that say that British Airways is the world's favourite airline. Putting those claims directly into an article, in the voice of the encyclopaedia, violates NPOV. If you can't understand that, you really shouldn't be editing. You are edit-warring to force blatantly biased material into the encyclopaedia, and that's a very silly thing to do. ] (]) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 23:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for ], as you did at ]. 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.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. - ] (]) 00:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| I find it scarcely believable that people will go to such lengths as block someone to prevent the enforcement of a core policy. It's simple to understand and very obvious that "best known for" is an opinion. I can hardly even comprehend that someone would edit war to enforce this obviously wrong wording, still less that the party enforcing the policy correctly would get blocked. ] (]) 04:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == January 2013 == | |||
| ] Please stop your ], as you did at ]. Your edits have been ] or removed. | |||
| * If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ]. | |||
| * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ]. | |||
| Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being ].<!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 --> ] (]) 07:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Incidentally, ] contains multiple references and statements in the lead to it being the best film ever made - be a dear and pop over there to remove them would you? Thanks. ] (]) 07:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I really didn't think I was making a subtle, difficult point about Citizen Kane but it looks like you missed it anyway. The article does not state that it's the best film ever made. It states that it has been described by many critics as the best film ever made. The former is opinion, the latter is fact. If you seriously can't understand this, it's no wonder you're doing so much damage. ] (]) 15:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. Your edits appear to be ] and have been ] or removed. | |||
| * If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ]. | |||
| * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ]. | |||
| Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's ], and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-disruptive2 --> | |||
| Ok, so I've hit you witha template, but please pay attention to the last paragraph: ''"Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you."'' Your behaviour and unique intepretation of policy has already led to you being blocked once. ] (]) 13:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :] Please refrain from being a ]. Your edits at ] have been ] or removed. | |||
| :There, I made my own template. What's your fucking problem, seriously? It is really fucking obvious that "best known for" is an opinion and not an objective fact. It should be really fucking easy to understand the bit in ] that says "Avoid stating opinions as facts". This is not hard stuff. What is your motivation for insisting that this POV be included in the article? When did you last read the core policies of wikipedia? ] (]) 16:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 17:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for your ] caused by ] and violation of the ] at ]. During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}} below this notice, but you should read the ] first. ] (]) 21:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| ::The phrase "best known for" is quite blatantly in violation of NPOV. It's an opinion. Removal of this phrase is required by policy. Repeatedly inserting blatantly inappropriate material into the encyclopaedia is vandalism. Reverting simple vandalism should not result in a block. It's staggering and disgusting that NPOV violators are not only not being corrected, not only not being educated, but are actually being encouraged now by admins to continue deliberately compromising the quality of the encyclopaedia. | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=reverting simple vandalism | decline=This does not appear to be an accurate description of your edits. ] ] 03:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello,<br />'''Thank you for ] to ] last night. A good revision, to which I have continued, in order to produce a better flow of good English. Have a '''<br />I hope you decide to stay.<br />Here are some pages you might like to see: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] and ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| You are welcome to continue editing without ], but you may want to consider '''<span class="plainlinks"></span>'''. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see ]. If you edit without a username, your ] (190.46.98.195) is used to identify you instead. | |||
| In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on ], or ask your question and then place <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> before the question on this page.<br />Cheers!<!-- Template:welcome-anon --> – <br /> – <strong>]</strong> |<small>]</small>| 07:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for the note. Much appreciated. I am glad you thought my edit was useful - as you might see from this talk page, there are quite a few people who do not think that following the core policies is useful! ] (]) 11:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are welcome.<br />Sincerely – <br /> – <strong>]</strong> |<small>]</small>| 18:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Post script:''<br />I enjoy, and often buy, your excellent red wine. "Cheers"! – <br /> – <strong>]</strong> |<small>]</small>| 18:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''"Best known for" is clearly backed up by a reliable third party reference, consensus on the talk page does not support your opinion, you are edit warring again.'' ] (]) 08:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| ::"Best known for" is an opinion, whether it appears in a reference or not. From the very same source, it says she "is taking the tequila world by storm". It says she can hold "everyone’s attention effortlessly, without imposing herself". It says she has had "a brilliant career on stage, screen and radio". It even says that if you drink her tequila you won't get a hangover. Next time someone insists that "best known for" is legitimate article content, I'll add some of those statements as well, seeing as they are clearly backed up by a reliable third party reference. ] (]) 11:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::That would be ], which is also a core policy - and would be reverted. ] (]) 14:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, see, you're wrong there. WP:POINT is a behavioural guideline, not one of the core content policies. Still, at least your comment does suggest that you might see what point is being made. ] (]) 01:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, the point is that you have refused to learn from your previous editing - which led to you being blocked twice - and are now implying that you will be even more intentionally disruptive than you already are - also that you will disregard "a behavioural guideline" (your quote) - which also implies that you have no intention of behaving here on Misplaced Pages. Either that, or your intepretation of "behaving" is as unique as your intepretation of NPOV. ] (]) 07:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Additional: I'm also getting weary of your insistence that nobody but you seems to understand the NPOV policy. It's not that nobody else understands it, just that it - like everything else on both Misplaced Pages and the world in general - is open to intepretation. I, and many other editors, intepret and accept the NPOV policy differently to you. Instead of relentlessly reverting, getting blocked, waiting out your block and rejoining the fray, you should consider what other editors deem acceptable for NPOV on any given article - and accept the consensus there. | |||
| ::::For example, you consider to be unacceptable, yet I don't. However, you don't find unacceptable and reinstated the entirely opinionated claim that photos ''"have been extremely widely reproduced"''. What's the difference? "Best known for" = bad, "have been extremely widely reproduced" = good? ] (]) 10:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't know about everyone else but you certainly don't understand NPOV. You clearly have a very shaky grasp of what's objective and what's subjective. "Extremely widely reproduced" is an objective fact. There are millions of copies of Ansel Adams prints in the world and his photographs are more widely reproduced than almost any other photographer's. If you think that's an opinion then frankly you're stupid beyond belief. "Best known for" is a subjective statement. Who are you to say what I or anyone else knows anyone best for? You don't know, and nor does the Daily Telegraph. It's an opinion. | |||
| :::::And don't try to draw any inferences from me correcting you on what is core policy and what is not. The only inference you need to draw from that is that you don't know the policies well enough. ] (]) 14:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :What's subjective, and what's objective is subjective. You believe in one intepretation, I - and others - believe in another. | |||
| :When you are outnumbered in an opinion, when you get repeatedly blocked for adhering to an opinion, when you resort to personal attacks to uphold your opinion, and finally, when you find it necessary to remove selective comments - ie those critical of you, but not those (that you inserted) critical of others - well, that should give you a clue as to the validity and accuracy of said opinion. ] (]) 10:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can hardly believe that you're so desperate to get this subjective shit into articles that you're even trying to convince yourself that there's no such thing as objective anyway. How old are you, exactly? I feel like I'm talking to a child and trying to explain concepts that are just way beyond them. You seem to think that if a Telegraph journalist says something, it must be unquestionably true. How does the Telegraph journalist know what you or I or anyone else "best knows" anyone for? ] (]) 11:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Moderate your language. No personal attacks. Comment on contributions not the contributor. I didn't say there was no such thing as objective - I said that what is objective and what is subjective is open for debate and interpretation. If you don't - or are unwilling - to understand that, then perhaps Misplaced Pages is not the place for you. ] (]) 12:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've been editing wikipedia a lot longer than you have and I understand it a lot better than you do. Now how about an answer to my question: How does the Telegraph journalist know what you or I or anyone else "best knows" anyone for? ] (]) 15:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::First edit 2 December 2012, so far as I can see. Care to enlighten us further? ] (]) 15:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::IPs change. ] (]) 16:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't need to answer your question, as by considering The Telegraph a reliable source, Misplaced Pages has answered it for me. ] (]) 17:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is as clear a demonstration as you could possibly give that you don't understand, and will never understand, how to write an encyclopaedia. ] (]) 18:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's only your opinion. And speaking of inadequate answers to question - you haven't really answered GHMyrtle's question - please give examples of previous editing to consolidate your claim that you have been editing longer, and that you understand it better than I - because your block history and general attitude here so far doesn't substantiate such a claim. ] (]) 06:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No no, it's an objective fact, but you have trouble with those. Your belief that everything in the Telegraph is true and objective is touching but wildly wrong. 10:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Ansel Adams== | |||
| I disagree with your view on the phrase "best known for" and have reinstated the language on the Ansel Adams article. My reasoning is contained on the Talk page. ] (]) 19:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Cleo Rocos == | |||
| Please engage on the talk page before reverting again. The wording is entirely acceptable within ], and the wishes of other editors on this matter make a clear consensus. I stongly advise that agreement is reached on the talk page of the article '''before''' you remove the text. - ] (]) 05:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The wording is quite clearly inane and ridiculous. I have no idea what you're playing at. ] (]) 12:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' temporarily from editing for ]. 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.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. </p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> ] ] 12:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC) <br clear="both"> | |||
| :As you've been warned and blocked for previously, you may not personally attack other editors. I have no position in your content disputes on multiple pages, but you must resolve those disputes before simply reverting in your preferred versions. ] ] 12:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Rocos, again== | |||
| Two things. Firstly, please do not start reverting to your preferred version without agreement reached by discussion on the talk page—please see ] and ]. Secondly, there is no need for such aggressive and insulting language towards others in your edit summaries, regardless of what they have done, or what your personal opinion is, . Please see ]. - ] (]) 04:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The wording you are trying to force into the article is simply ridiculous. I assumed it was some sort of joke on your part at first, but it really seems you're serious. And it seems that editors like you who don't understand basic policy are no longer uncommon here - I see that someone reverted that edit that you point out, to restore a copyright violation into the article. I don't really know what to say to you other than that "described by X as being best known for being Y" instead of "Y" is an obviously ridiculous way to introduce the subject of an article. Is it that you can't understand that, or that you won't? ] (]) 19:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#FCC;" class="user-block"> ] You have been ] from editing for in accordance with ] as a result of your repeated ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your ''']''' by adding the text <nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki> . ] ] 12:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- {{uw-block1}} --> <br clear="both"> | |||
| == ANI == | |||
| Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | |||
Latest revision as of 23:29, 5 February 2023
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.