Content deleted Content added
DrFleischman (talk | contribs) |
75.175.105.188 (talk) |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:::As I have now pointed out in the Talk Page, I am entitled to proceed, and use the Talk Page to back up the edits that I intend to make. I have to do ONE thing first, and the other thing SECOND. Is it reasonable for these thugs to invent some sort of rule (that does not, in fact, exist) to prevent me from proceeding with "Talk Page first, main article second", rather than the opposite? And things don't bode well: If I change to the "main article first, talk page second", will they revert my edits based on some silly fictitious rule that says I have to FIRST explain and back up what I'm doing? The reality is that these guys simply don't want such references in the main article, if they ultimately back up what I have already said on the Talk page. You might want to remind these bullies that they should SHUT UP for a while, rather than causing drama to occur. I am NOT vandalizing WP, and I don't think I am violating any actual rules by proceeding as I have chosen to do. Don't back them up since their criticisms are not constructive. [[Special:Contributions/75.175.105.188|75.175.105.188]] ([[User talk:75.175.105.188#top|talk]]) 23:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC) |
:::As I have now pointed out in the Talk Page, I am entitled to proceed, and use the Talk Page to back up the edits that I intend to make. I have to do ONE thing first, and the other thing SECOND. Is it reasonable for these thugs to invent some sort of rule (that does not, in fact, exist) to prevent me from proceeding with "Talk Page first, main article second", rather than the opposite? And things don't bode well: If I change to the "main article first, talk page second", will they revert my edits based on some silly fictitious rule that says I have to FIRST explain and back up what I'm doing? The reality is that these guys simply don't want such references in the main article, if they ultimately back up what I have already said on the Talk page. You might want to remind these bullies that they should SHUT UP for a while, rather than causing drama to occur. I am NOT vandalizing WP, and I don't think I am violating any actual rules by proceeding as I have chosen to do. Don't back them up since their criticisms are not constructive. [[Special:Contributions/75.175.105.188|75.175.105.188]] ([[User talk:75.175.105.188#top|talk]]) 23:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::There is no entitlement to use talk pages how you like or to call people bullies and thugs for pointing out the rules to you. If you persist, you may lose the ability to edit. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 23:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC) |
::::There is no entitlement to use talk pages how you like or to call people bullies and thugs for pointing out the rules to you. If you persist, you may lose the ability to edit. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] ([[User talk:Jonathunder|talk]]) 23:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::I didn't claim to be able to use talkpages "how you like", to the extent you are implying "HOWEVER you like". (As if there were no rules.) But I didn't do that. I failed to follow a phony, invented rule that (apparently) said that a person FIRST had to edit the main article, and ONLY THEN edit the talk page. And no, I didn't call you people "bullies and thugs" merely for pointing out valid rules: I called you "bullies and thugs" for acting in a bullying and thuggish manner, inventing fictious rules and using those fictitious rules to justify instantly deleting/reverting material I was in the process of adding. And for engaging in an obvious edit-war without a shred of justification. [[Special:Contributions/75.175.105.188|75.175.105.188]] ([[User talk:75.175.105.188#top|talk]]) 23:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::75.175.105.188, ok, I see now. The article talk page actually isn't the best place to back up content. A better approach would be to create an account, which would give you access to your own sandbox, which is designed for that very purpose. However, if you really want to add test content to the article talk page, you should explain that that's what you're doing. In any case, you seem to have some strong feelings about how the editing process should work here. However how you think it ''should'' work isn't how it ''does'' work. There is a plethora of information in the Wikipedia namespace (WP:...) to help you learn how Wikipedia works. You might start by checking out [[WP:EP]]. Most urgently, however, I '''strongly, strongly''' encourage you to read [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:AGF]] before you get yourself blocked by an administrator. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 23:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC) |
::::75.175.105.188, ok, I see now. The article talk page actually isn't the best place to back up content. A better approach would be to create an account, which would give you access to your own sandbox, which is designed for that very purpose. However, if you really want to add test content to the article talk page, you should explain that that's what you're doing. In any case, you seem to have some strong feelings about how the editing process should work here. However how you think it ''should'' work isn't how it ''does'' work. There is a plethora of information in the Wikipedia namespace (WP:...) to help you learn how Wikipedia works. You might start by checking out [[WP:EP]]. Most urgently, however, I '''strongly, strongly''' encourage you to read [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:AGF]] before you get yourself blocked by an administrator. --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 23:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::Huh?!? I wasn't aware that a person should use a "sandbox" for preparing material for a Talk page! The REASON for having Talk pages, I thought, was to allow discussions of materials in articles. "Sandboxes" were to prepare articles. Right? You seem to be proposing adding a layer of complexity that WP does not claim to require. Please don't bend over backwards to make it look like I did something wrong, when I didn't. [[Special:Contributions/75.175.105.188|75.175.105.188]] ([[User talk:75.175.105.188#top|talk]]) 23:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:00, 5 May 2016
May 2016
Please see Wikipedia:NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or place to promote your thoughts. Talk pages are to improve the associated article, not to be used as a blog. If you persist in doing so, you may be blocked. Jonathunder (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sure sounds like you're threatening me! Rude, obnoxious, and ultimately evil. 75.175.105.188 (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I also eat kittens for breakfast. Look, the Internet has lots of places where you can propound any political theory you like. Talk pages of Wikipedia articles serve another purpose. Jonathunder (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- except that I am entitled to employ the Talk page for the purpose of developing the editing of the main article. The mere fact that I haven't YET gotten to the latter, in large part because of the thuggery committed by editors like Jonathunder, Neutrality, and LjL, cannot be legitimately use to further obstruct me. Stop being a rude, obnoxious thug and let me work. 75.175.105.188 (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I also eat kittens for breakfast. Look, the Internet has lots of places where you can propound any political theory you like. Talk pages of Wikipedia articles serve another purpose. Jonathunder (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hello 75.175.105.188. Although I think deletion of your comments might have been a little heavy-handed, Jonathunder and Neutrality are correct that the sort of comment you put on Talk:Merrick Garland does not belong there. Please review our policy WP:NOTFORUM: Article talk pages are not a forum for discussion of the subjects of articles, they are for discussion of the articles themselves. Your original comment appeared to have nothing to do with our article. If you want to discuss content or sources you want included in the article, then by all means discuss it by writing something like, "What do people think about adding X to the article?" Of course, we need to adhere to other policies and guidelines, such as WP:V and WP:AGF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- As I have now pointed out in the Talk Page, I am entitled to proceed, and use the Talk Page to back up the edits that I intend to make. I have to do ONE thing first, and the other thing SECOND. Is it reasonable for these thugs to invent some sort of rule (that does not, in fact, exist) to prevent me from proceeding with "Talk Page first, main article second", rather than the opposite? And things don't bode well: If I change to the "main article first, talk page second", will they revert my edits based on some silly fictitious rule that says I have to FIRST explain and back up what I'm doing? The reality is that these guys simply don't want such references in the main article, if they ultimately back up what I have already said on the Talk page. You might want to remind these bullies that they should SHUT UP for a while, rather than causing drama to occur. I am NOT vandalizing WP, and I don't think I am violating any actual rules by proceeding as I have chosen to do. Don't back them up since their criticisms are not constructive. 75.175.105.188 (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- There is no entitlement to use talk pages how you like or to call people bullies and thugs for pointing out the rules to you. If you persist, you may lose the ability to edit. Jonathunder (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- As I have now pointed out in the Talk Page, I am entitled to proceed, and use the Talk Page to back up the edits that I intend to make. I have to do ONE thing first, and the other thing SECOND. Is it reasonable for these thugs to invent some sort of rule (that does not, in fact, exist) to prevent me from proceeding with "Talk Page first, main article second", rather than the opposite? And things don't bode well: If I change to the "main article first, talk page second", will they revert my edits based on some silly fictitious rule that says I have to FIRST explain and back up what I'm doing? The reality is that these guys simply don't want such references in the main article, if they ultimately back up what I have already said on the Talk page. You might want to remind these bullies that they should SHUT UP for a while, rather than causing drama to occur. I am NOT vandalizing WP, and I don't think I am violating any actual rules by proceeding as I have chosen to do. Don't back them up since their criticisms are not constructive. 75.175.105.188 (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hello 75.175.105.188. Although I think deletion of your comments might have been a little heavy-handed, Jonathunder and Neutrality are correct that the sort of comment you put on Talk:Merrick Garland does not belong there. Please review our policy WP:NOTFORUM: Article talk pages are not a forum for discussion of the subjects of articles, they are for discussion of the articles themselves. Your original comment appeared to have nothing to do with our article. If you want to discuss content or sources you want included in the article, then by all means discuss it by writing something like, "What do people think about adding X to the article?" Of course, we need to adhere to other policies and guidelines, such as WP:V and WP:AGF. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't claim to be able to use talkpages "how you like", to the extent you are implying "HOWEVER you like". (As if there were no rules.) But I didn't do that. I failed to follow a phony, invented rule that (apparently) said that a person FIRST had to edit the main article, and ONLY THEN edit the talk page. And no, I didn't call you people "bullies and thugs" merely for pointing out valid rules: I called you "bullies and thugs" for acting in a bullying and thuggish manner, inventing fictious rules and using those fictitious rules to justify instantly deleting/reverting material I was in the process of adding. And for engaging in an obvious edit-war without a shred of justification. 75.175.105.188 (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- 75.175.105.188, ok, I see now. The article talk page actually isn't the best place to back up content. A better approach would be to create an account, which would give you access to your own sandbox, which is designed for that very purpose. However, if you really want to add test content to the article talk page, you should explain that that's what you're doing. In any case, you seem to have some strong feelings about how the editing process should work here. However how you think it should work isn't how it does work. There is a plethora of information in the Wikipedia namespace (WP:...) to help you learn how Wikipedia works. You might start by checking out WP:EP. Most urgently, however, I strongly, strongly encourage you to read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF before you get yourself blocked by an administrator. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Huh?!? I wasn't aware that a person should use a "sandbox" for preparing material for a Talk page! The REASON for having Talk pages, I thought, was to allow discussions of materials in articles. "Sandboxes" were to prepare articles. Right? You seem to be proposing adding a layer of complexity that WP does not claim to require. Please don't bend over backwards to make it look like I did something wrong, when I didn't. 75.175.105.188 (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)