| Revision as of 05:43, 8 November 2007 editAlexandria (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,500 edits →November 2007: unblocked← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:21, 8 November 2007 edit undoPerspicacite (talk | contribs)6,334 edits archivingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Archive== | ==Archive== | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| == Civility == | |||
| Hi. Could you please tone it down a little? edit seems unnecessarily uncivil. When I saw you had a prior block for incivility, I nearly blocked you without a specific warning, as I didn't think your recent posts at AN/I were helpful either; William Pietri is trying to help you there and you seem determined not to take the help. In any case, I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt. Please, however, be in no doubt that continued comments like that will likely lead to a block. Please choose wisely. --] 07:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Frank Gaffney == | |||
| Regardless of any other concerns at ], please do not re-introduce the Jewish-American category into this article without sourcing it. I'm sure you realise that you should not be doing this. Thanks, <b>]</b> 16:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * I apologise if I sounded like I was accusing you of introducing the item first, and it is indeed a revert, however when reverting you need to ensure you are not re-introducing unsourced material, especially on a biography of living persons. <b>]</b> 22:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| yes, I probably should have checked and fixed the link rather than just reverting -- that was lazy of me. Sorry about that. thanks for the note! ] ] 19:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == My comment about RfC == | |||
| I was not referring to the check user request. I was recommending that you file an RfC on the dispute with Alice S. I felt--and still feel--that this would illuminate for you that you were in the wrong in this case. You were behaved uncivilly toward her and others in both the Gaffney and the Tolekau AN/I threads. That was my only reason for recommending an RfC to you: I wanted you to be able to solicit outside opinions on your conduct during the disputes. As things appear to have calmed now, I do hope you will not continue to reintroduce unsourced material per ], and that you will refrain from attacking other users as you did on the AN/I. I'm certain you have much to offer the project, and I'm glad things have calmed down. Regards, ] 03:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Apology=== | |||
| I would like to apologise unreservedly if I have caused you any stress or embarrassment. | |||
| I am very new here and I was insensitive in not adequately realising that you might take offence at my presumption in editing articles to which you had already made valuable and long-term improvements. | |||
| Please feel free to sound-off at me by e-mail in future if I put a step wrong - you're a much more experienced editor than I and I'm sure that you can teach me a lot. You know what they say ''"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"'' and on that assessment I'm really scary! | |||
| I've also apologised but on re-reading that edit again, it sounds a bit havering and grudging. | |||
| If that apology is not sufficient please e-mail me what you would like me to write and I'll re-do it. | |||
| Sorry again! | |||
| ] 21:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Frank Gaffney == | |||
| I had read a comment placed by another user which stated that he was, and I had always suspected it to be the case given his commentaries on certain issues (he is a writer for the Jewish World Review). However he does not widely publicize it and I'm unable to find a link for sure, aside from certain forums which mention that he is. So in retrospect this may be an error; even if it is not it seems to be against Misplaced Pages policy. ] 02:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Your reply== | |||
| No, I do not think that you are stupid, but your immediate assumption that I am trying to bait you, rather than raise real concerns about how you interact with other editors, is an excellent illustration of the problem. Please step back and think about how your edits and edit summaries appear to others. ] 03:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't a good way of responding to criticism, your needlessly confrontational and aggressive attitude is unacceptable. ] 03:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Do you think edit summaries such as are acceptable? | |||
| == November 2007 == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:48 hours|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours'''|You have been temporarily ''']''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{reason|}}}|'''{{{reason}}}'''|repeated ]}}. Please stop. You're welcome to make ''useful'' contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified 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 "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:true|] 04:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block2 --> | |||
| {| align="center" class="notice noprint" style="background: none; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 0.5em; margin: 0.5em auto;" | |||
| |- | |||
| | valign="top" style="padding: 0.1em" | {{tick|40}} | |||
| | style="padding: 0.1em" | | |||
| '''Your request to be unblocked''' has been '''granted''' for the following reason(s): | |||
| <br><br>There was no incivility that I can see, and ] should not have made that block. | |||
| ''Request handled by:'' <font face="comic sans ms">] <small>]</small></font> 05:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Request accepted (after-block request) --> | |||
| |} | |||