| Revision as of 18:07, 16 December 2009 edit2over0 (talk | contribs)17,247 edits →Edit warring at Occupied territories: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:24, 20 December 2009 edit undoPBS (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled116,854 edits →Edit warring at Occupied territoriesNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| Please do not ] over articles; when a change is contested, please seek ] and compromise at ]. You have not edited that article for more than a day, which would have been the block length if your ] had been closed sooner, so I will not block you at this time. I have made a few suggestions on the talkpage, which you and the other editors there are free to take or leave at your pleasure. If you resume edit warring by inserting the same text without first receiving consensus at the talkpage, you may be ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 18:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | Please do not ] over articles; when a change is contested, please seek ] and compromise at ]. You have not edited that article for more than a day, which would have been the block length if your ] had been closed sooner, so I will not block you at this time. I have made a few suggestions on the talkpage, which you and the other editors there are free to take or leave at your pleasure. If you resume edit warring by inserting the same text without first receiving consensus at the talkpage, you may be ]. - ] <small>(])</small> 18:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Warning== | |||
| ] This is the '''only warning''' you will receive for your disruptive comments. <br> The next time you make a ]{{#if:| as you did at ]}}, you '''will''' be ] for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-npa4im --> | |||
| I have already pointed out to you why uncivil comments that you made on the ] were counter productive, but as you are not listening, this is your last warning. -- ] (]) 11:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:24, 20 December 2009
Welcome!
Hello, NickCT, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Soxwon (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Parting Shot re:FNC
I came out of retirement because when you first came on this article no one was paying attention to what you were saying and trying to do. I thought your point was valid, but you were being shushed away with "no consensus" and "we've discussed before" arguments without explaining the process behind those sentiments. You seem like you'll be good here, but I ask that if you don't understand something just ask. This jumping to conclusions and attributing of positions is the quickest way to label yourself as a contentious editor, and thus make it more difficult for you to find consensus with other editors. I won't be as active (and most of the time not active at all actually) here on Misplaced Pages in the future, but if you have any questions about process feel free to leave a note on my talk page. I can't promise I'd get back to you soon, but I will eventually get back to you. Ramsquire 16:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Not to belabor the point, but . . .
- I'm putting this on your talk page because it really doesn't change anything in the Fox News discussion. I'm the one who objected to the formulation that Fox "maintains a distinction between its news coverage and its editorial programming" because the word "maintains" as used here could mean "keeps" or "preserves" rather than "contends" or "asserts". I replaced it with "points to", probably not the best word choice. However once one says that Fox "maintains that there is a distinction between its news coverage and its editorial programming", then the former problem no longer exists because the particular meaning of "maintains" becomes obvious from the context. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Excellent quote
I am quoting you on my userpage for your most excellent insight and response to Ramsquire. While I've always been aware of the underlying issue, you very perfectly crystallized and captured the essence of the thought. Thank you. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring at Occupied territories
Please do not edit war over articles; when a change is contested, please seek consensus and compromise at the talkpage. You have not edited that article for more than a day, which would have been the block length if your AN3 report had been closed sooner, so I will not block you at this time. I have made a few suggestions on the talkpage, which you and the other editors there are free to take or leave at your pleasure. If you resume edit warring by inserting the same text without first receiving consensus at the talkpage, you may be blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Warning
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.
I have already pointed out to you why uncivil comments that you made on the talk page of occupied territory were counter productive, but as you are not listening, this is your last warning. -- PBS (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)