→European cuisine: notes on behaviour |
Second time of asking |
||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
Hi Kutsuit. While investigating a user complaint posted on my talk page, I noticed that some of your talk page and user talk page remarks have been less than ideal. For example, in '''{{diff|User talk:Bobcats 23|prev|603437374|this post}}''' you describe a user who disagrees with you as engaging in irrational stubbornness. And on my talk page, '''{{diff|User talk:Diannaa|prev|604576777|here}}''' you use phrasing such as "deliberately being dishonest" and "resorted to other antics" and "evident to me that you do not understand". Such comments on other people's behaviour and speculation as to their state of mind is insulting and demeaning of your fellow editors, who you should treat as esteemed colleagues, even though you may disagree with them on editorial decisions. It's not the type of professional behaviour we are trying to promote on this wiki. It's not the type of language you would use in person in the workplace, and it's not welcome here. Please focus your remarks strictly on the content, and don't comment on their behaviour or speculate on their motives. Thank you, -- [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 14:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC) |
Hi Kutsuit. While investigating a user complaint posted on my talk page, I noticed that some of your talk page and user talk page remarks have been less than ideal. For example, in '''{{diff|User talk:Bobcats 23|prev|603437374|this post}}''' you describe a user who disagrees with you as engaging in irrational stubbornness. And on my talk page, '''{{diff|User talk:Diannaa|prev|604576777|here}}''' you use phrasing such as "deliberately being dishonest" and "resorted to other antics" and "evident to me that you do not understand". Such comments on other people's behaviour and speculation as to their state of mind is insulting and demeaning of your fellow editors, who you should treat as esteemed colleagues, even though you may disagree with them on editorial decisions. It's not the type of professional behaviour we are trying to promote on this wiki. It's not the type of language you would use in person in the workplace, and it's not welcome here. Please focus your remarks strictly on the content, and don't comment on their behaviour or speculate on their motives. Thank you, -- [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 14:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
==Second time of asking== |
|||
"That's not a fair request on your part and I would like to question the motive behind such a request. Why are you evading the discussion?"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_cuisine&diff=604764661&oldid=604759102] This, coming just one day after Diannaa reminded you just above to "Please focus your remarks strictly on the content, and don't comment on their behaviour ''or speculate on their motives''" (my italics) made me blink, as did your overall tone in that exchange. You'll have to stop getting personal or you may be [[WP:BLOCK|blocked from editing]]. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 04:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC). |
Revision as of 04:54, 19 April 2014
FIFA 13
Please stop reverting my edits. I'm filling in the references on the page to make it more detailed; which is not the slightest bit of vandalism. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 14:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- To back me up: WP:Citing Sources please read what should be included in a references; I'm not using the format shown for the references, since there are more detailed formats for the references. The way you had the references they were bare, and the references are supposed to be filled out to show the information about the source. That is the basic way to source something, since you're relatively new to Wikipedia editing (you have sub-50 edits).Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, well for future reference (lol i'm punny) just revert back to the last edit so I don't have to keep reffing. Thanks for explaining. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 16:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Your Signature
Hi there, Kutsuit! Just letting you know that per this policy, it is confusing to editors (especially new ones) if you don't include your actual username in your signature.
Signatures which include no reference to the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in User:Nickname) are strongly discouraged, as it can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers). The actual username always appears in the page history, so using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make it appear to be a different person. If necessary it is possible to change your username; otherwise, ensure you include your user account name, e.g. in the form User:Example/Nickname.
From WP:SIG
With that being said, you may wish to change it. Thanks! Theopolisme :) 21:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Great! Theopolisme :) 21:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
CVUA
WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!
WikiWomen - We need you! | |
---|---|
Hi Kutsuit! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by:
Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
European royal houses
You didn't mess up. It was my own computer's fault, which is why I reverted by revert of your edit. Sorry for the confusion.
Cheers,
Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Hello, I'm JMHamo. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Everton F.C. without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 08:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
JMHamo (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to 2013–14 Liverpool FC season. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Results by round on Liverpool F.C. season article
Did you not read the comment on the Liverpool F.C. season article about the Statto source? Could you please revert your changes. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. As you know, everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable by a reliable source Happy editing! JMHamo (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello there
I was thinking about you. Don't forget your morning cup of coffee :) Elspamo4 (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC) |
Hahaha
Thank you for your message!! I was just saying to a work colleague the other day that we (Everton) needed to get 'stuffed' by someone, we have been drawing to many recently, and needed a good football lesson to kick us back into action again! I didn't expect it would be Liverpool to do this to us though! It hurts!
Hope your keeping well. Druryfire (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 20:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
Message added 06:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
» nafSadh did say 06:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Help needed!
Hi there, Bobcats 23!
I noticed that you were actively engaged in this article, a few months ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_cuisine
It seems that the user "Jerryine" is unwilling to keep certain European countries in the article for whatever reason it may be, even though the countries I'm trying to add to the article can be found in the template for European cuisine.
Is there anything we could do to stop this irrational stubbornness? --Kutsuit (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I advise you to reach an admin if it continues. I'll be following. --Bobcats 23 (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
European cuisine
Kutsuit, Kazakh cuisine does not belong in the European cuisine article - please see List of European cuisines, or here, for example. --IIIraute (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kutsuit. While investigating a user complaint posted on my talk page, I noticed that some of your talk page and user talk page remarks have been less than ideal. For example, in this post you describe a user who disagrees with you as engaging in irrational stubbornness. And on my talk page, here you use phrasing such as "deliberately being dishonest" and "resorted to other antics" and "evident to me that you do not understand". Such comments on other people's behaviour and speculation as to their state of mind is insulting and demeaning of your fellow editors, who you should treat as esteemed colleagues, even though you may disagree with them on editorial decisions. It's not the type of professional behaviour we are trying to promote on this wiki. It's not the type of language you would use in person in the workplace, and it's not welcome here. Please focus your remarks strictly on the content, and don't comment on their behaviour or speculate on their motives. Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Second time of asking
"That's not a fair request on your part and I would like to question the motive behind such a request. Why are you evading the discussion?"[1] This, coming just one day after Diannaa reminded you just above to "Please focus your remarks strictly on the content, and don't comment on their behaviour or speculate on their motives" (my italics) made me blink, as did your overall tone in that exchange. You'll have to stop getting personal or you may be blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 04:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC).