| Revision as of 20:52, 28 October 2013 editHuntthetroll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,996 edits →Request for administrator intervention: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:13, 29 October 2013 edit undoHuntthetroll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,996 edits →Request for administrator interventionNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 20:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 20:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :If you really care what I said in my post on the administrators' noticeboard, feel free to satisfy your curiosity by reading the post. If, as I suspect, you instead just want to know why many editors keep reverting your edits, the answer is pretty simple. This website is a collaborative project, whose goal is the compilation of knowledge. It works best when editors communicate with each other in a civilized, good-faith manner, and resolve differences of opinion through reasoned debate before committing to publish content. | |||
| :So far, you haven't done any of that. Instead, you've been applying the bull-in-a-china-shop philosophy of editing, i.e. "This is what the article is going to say and that's final, because I'm right and you're all incompetent corporate lackeys. Shut up, I know what I'm talking about and my content is right because I said so." Nobody benefits or gains any knowledge when you do that. If you talked to other editors and explained your ideas about various articles' deficiencies, and had a meaningful dialogue with them, it would be a win-win situation. You would have corrected other people's misperceptions, and they would have learned something. For whatever reason, you have chosen not to do this. You have chosen instead to trample on the contributions of others and throw the entire process into disarray, all while acting as if you are the sole arbiter of truth and knowledge. As long as you keep up that attitude, no one will listen to you, because you are not doing your duties as a member of this community—regardless of the quality or truth of your contributions. ] (]) 17:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:13, 29 October 2013
September 2013
Hi. Please do not add unsourced personal observations or speculation on pop cultural references to articles, as you did with this edit to Leela (Futurama), as this violates Misplaced Pages's policies of Verifiability, No Original Research, and WP:SYNTH. Misplaced Pages requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. With regard to material about the content of fiction that is evaluative, analytical or interpretive, the source must be a secondary source, and it must explicitly mention the information in relation to the work in question. Relying instead on personal observation or interpretation is original research, and using sources to form original conclusions not explicitly in those sources is synthesis, which is a form of original research. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Hello, I'm Wikipelli. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Cloud computing, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wikipelli 16:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Wikipelli 16:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Wikipelli with this edit. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at XTS-400, you may be blocked from editing. andy (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Request for administrator intervention
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Huntthetroll (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you really care what I said in my post on the administrators' noticeboard, feel free to satisfy your curiosity by reading the post. If, as I suspect, you instead just want to know why many editors keep reverting your edits, the answer is pretty simple. This website is a collaborative project, whose goal is the compilation of knowledge. It works best when editors communicate with each other in a civilized, good-faith manner, and resolve differences of opinion through reasoned debate before committing to publish content.
- So far, you haven't done any of that. Instead, you've been applying the bull-in-a-china-shop philosophy of editing, i.e. "This is what the article is going to say and that's final, because I'm right and you're all incompetent corporate lackeys. Shut up, I know what I'm talking about and my content is right because I said so." Nobody benefits or gains any knowledge when you do that. If you talked to other editors and explained your ideas about various articles' deficiencies, and had a meaningful dialogue with them, it would be a win-win situation. You would have corrected other people's misperceptions, and they would have learned something. For whatever reason, you have chosen not to do this. You have chosen instead to trample on the contributions of others and throw the entire process into disarray, all while acting as if you are the sole arbiter of truth and knowledge. As long as you keep up that attitude, no one will listen to you, because you are not doing your duties as a member of this community—regardless of the quality or truth of your contributions. Huntthetroll (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)