| Revision as of 14:49, 6 April 2009 editAbtract (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,199 edits →Sneery comments: good luck← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:21, 16 May 2009 edit undoAbtract (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,199 edits remove out of date commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi. Can you explain why you my removal of some ] content? Thanks. —]∴ ''']]]''' 11:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Notability is in the eye of the beholder ... so maybe my eyes see these matters more (less?) clearly than do yours. ] (]) 18:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| OK, there's something I ''really'' want to know from you. Are you still setting up primary topics even if "(disambiguation)" isn't in the page's title? If so, you know it doesn't make sense, right? Please reply below, ] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :see my last edit summary ... two sections are needed and imho at one of them (means) adl is the primary topic since it is the only topic. ] (]) 01:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're not adhering to the guidelines. For instance, ] says: "''When a page has "(disambiguation)" in its title – i.e., it is the disambiguation page for a term that has a primary topic – users are most likely to arrive there by clicking on a top link from the primary topic article...''". So, why do you choose to not follow suit? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::The way you've done it now is much better. ] (]) 01:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Since a series of questions ain't working, how about we reach some kind of compromise? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In what way? ... I agree your latest edit. ] (]) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Just do like I did back there from here on. If you can at least follow that, I won't be giving you another earful. Agree? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Sess you only got it right at the third attempt so don't be so quick to issue orders. ] (]) 01:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Again, you're making me go around in circles. I'm trying to touch base with you but you're not making that possible. Do you want to compromise or not? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't understand your use of the word "compromise" in the context of you issuing instructions. ] (]) 01:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::All I'm asking for is some form of agreement. I'm not trying to be the villain here ... ] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I can only continue to do what I have always done which is to interpret the guidelines as I see them, and use common sense where I think that is better. You of course will continue to do the same thing. The fact that we may disagree sometimes is immaterial and only to be expected - it is no big deal unless you make it so. ] (]) 02:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == February 2009 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:HP (disambiguation)|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't be silly; warning a regular in that way is absurd as you must know Sess. ] (]) 19:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::] is but an ignorable essay in your cause. You have a clear history of instigating edit wars, as well as violating policies such as ] and ]. For your sake Abtract, desist from going back to your old ways and try talking things out for once (attempt the ] method like I am, as J told us to do). Your recent activity on the HP dab has been nothing short of unbecoming. Don't let me catch you doing that again. Revert warring is still a blockable offense (even if that means defying the spirit of ]). Keep in mind what I've conveyed. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bugger off if you can't behave sensibly. ] (]) 19:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Shooting == | |||
| No, you're right, the tone of some of the material was inappropriate. I hadn't considered that, but I think I've cleaned it up, and that gave me a chance to edit some other material that was bothering me. Thanks for pointing it out. ] (]) 05:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ] | |||
| This is an automated message from ]. I have performed a web search with the contents of ], and it appears to be very similar to another Misplaced Pages page: ]. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at ] by acknowledging the duplication of material in ] to preserve attribution history. | |||
| This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on ]. ] (]) 15:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Removed tag and replied to Coren as requested. ] (]) 15:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==March 2009== | |||
| Per , your account is blocked for one month. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :could you explain why please. ] (]) 13:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::] ruled that by you were breaking the terms of ] which the arbitration committee dealt out. As you broke the ruling, you are now suffering the punishment. —]∴ ''']]]''' 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I might be convinced to relax the sanction if you demonstrate an understanding of what sort of behavior should be avoided and make a convincing pledge. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I want only to be a good wikipedian but I do not understand what "behaviour" has got me blocked, so it is difficult to accede to your request without some prior explanation ... sorry. ] (]) 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You're not to interact with Alastair. If they are editing an article, don't revert them and don't even continue to edit an article after you notice they are involved. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have no intention of interacting with Haines, I simply edit article in need. If it bothers him, which I doubt, then maybe you should ask Haines to desist from editing articles where I am editing. ] (]) 07:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sneery comments== | |||
| I'm fairly new to Misplaced Pages, and try to be nice and so on, and add little improvements and removing vandalism where I find it, but I'm not sure if I want to step up this level of contribution (that is actual original content) if when I receive for my efforts 'sneery' or condescending comments. | |||
| My edit of ] was ] after watching a highly stimulating documentary about soundwaves and ancient ceremonies. I added my comment but failed to find anything online to back up the theory. Ok fine, it needs to be pulled until there is a citation but really is the comment ' at Megaliths was any less nonsensical than the one mentioned above ... but hey you may surprise us all and go the constructive route.' What does 'you may surprise us all' mean? Is this some kind of hard hand encouragement? Plus this comment is permanently on my user talk so now I have to work hard to show it is no longer true! My experience of Misplaced Pages has been tempered somewhat by these 'sneery' and really rather unnecessary comments. Perhaps the offending remark could be removed and an apology from the writer before I make any further contribution? I dunno. ] (]) 23:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually was your edit to megaliths and, as you will see, it is indeed nonsense ... as was your creation of the "article" ] at about the same time. Well done you seem to have grown up a tad but please don't have a pop at me for fairly gently pointing out the error of your earlier ways. Incidentally, if it offends you so much to have the comments on your talk page, all you have to do is remove them. Good luck with your studies. ] (]) 14:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||