→The_Teetotaller: reply |
Time Will Say Nothing (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
There is also no consistency in the objections to these edits. First they are said to be promotional. I note that that ridiculous objection has been removed by the editor who made it, having been disproved. Then the objection seems to be vandalism of a page. Now you suggest indiscriminate collection of information. What exactly is the objection? There is nothing indiscriminate about this project. I intend over time to add significant extracts from the book. These extracts will take up too much space if they are all on one page. As it is they are co-ordinated (and therefore not indiscriminate) by the fact that they are linked from the main page Up To Now. This is a carefully thought-out project, unlike the raft of inconsistent objections, and aggressive edits. Kindly stop preventing information from being posted in an orderly and co-ordinated manner. Thanks [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing|talk]]) 23:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
There is also no consistency in the objections to these edits. First they are said to be promotional. I note that that ridiculous objection has been removed by the editor who made it, having been disproved. Then the objection seems to be vandalism of a page. Now you suggest indiscriminate collection of information. What exactly is the objection? There is nothing indiscriminate about this project. I intend over time to add significant extracts from the book. These extracts will take up too much space if they are all on one page. As it is they are co-ordinated (and therefore not indiscriminate) by the fact that they are linked from the main page Up To Now. This is a carefully thought-out project, unlike the raft of inconsistent objections, and aggressive edits. Kindly stop preventing information from being posted in an orderly and co-ordinated manner. Thanks [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing|talk]]) 23:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:There is not enough content to warrant individual articles for each piece. Either add it to the main article, or add it to a different project. [[User:Nakon|<font color="#C50">'''Nakon'''</font>]] 23:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
:There is not enough content to warrant individual articles for each piece. Either add it to the main article, or add it to a different project. [[User:Nakon|<font color="#C50">'''Nakon'''</font>]] 23:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
Now you make a further totally different objection! This not about effective editing, but about the egos of the editors involved. |
|||
I also notice that a box was placed on the main page (Up To Now), saying there was no source, although I had previously put the source at the bottom of the page! Don't your editors bother to read the pages before tagging them?. [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing|talk]]) 23:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:26, 4 January 2011
Hiya. This user dropped by #wikipedia-en-unblock, and you were the blocking admin. I left note about the whole thing there. --slakr\ talk / 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The help page...
Thanks for reverting that! I was trying to undo it, but you beat me to it! Sometimes using my mobile phone to edit can be a pain! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 05:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
speedies
Please remember in placing a deletion tag on articles to notify the editor involved. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi. Thanks for the RevDel on my Talk page - I don't think I've had abuse that's needed that before, so I must be doing something right :-) I've actually restored the first rant, the one before the RevDel version, as it doesn't seem too bad in that state, and I've provided a friendly answer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Unblocking this editor didn't work. He's blanked his talk page and immediately created over 50 extremely low quality stubs. It needs stopping. What do you think? --Kudpung (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
IP on Falkland Islands
Thanks for blocking the IP disrupting Talk:Falkland Islands.
Thought it might be worth bringing to your attention this edit, apparently from the same editor, and also the fact that he has been canvassing on es.wiki: see here and here. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at this article? It's another one of Time_Will_Say_Nothing (talk · contribs) pages that are from the autobiography. I've tried redirecting it, I tried warning him, but nothing is working. Thanks.--v/r - TP 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've given him a final warning. Nakon 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I have read your final warning. Your conduct is unacceptable harassment. You state there is no context. Read the first sentence and the source which together provide the context.
Another page in this series has been deleted twice. Why is one page directed and another deleted? There is no consistency in your approach, demonstrating that it is the product of wilful and caprcious harrassment. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you are looking to add primary source material, you may want to try over at our sister project, Wikisource. Nakon 23:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This is secondary source material. It is from a published book. I have given the source on each page concerned. There is no consistency in your statements. First, you say put the extracts on the main page. Now you say put in on a different project.
There is also no consistency in the objections to these edits. First they are said to be promotional. I note that that ridiculous objection has been removed by the editor who made it, having been disproved. Then the objection seems to be vandalism of a page. Now you suggest indiscriminate collection of information. What exactly is the objection? There is nothing indiscriminate about this project. I intend over time to add significant extracts from the book. These extracts will take up too much space if they are all on one page. As it is they are co-ordinated (and therefore not indiscriminate) by the fact that they are linked from the main page Up To Now. This is a carefully thought-out project, unlike the raft of inconsistent objections, and aggressive edits. Kindly stop preventing information from being posted in an orderly and co-ordinated manner. Thanks Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is not enough content to warrant individual articles for each piece. Either add it to the main article, or add it to a different project. Nakon 23:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Now you make a further totally different objection! This not about effective editing, but about the egos of the editors involved. I also notice that a box was placed on the main page (Up To Now), saying there was no source, although I had previously put the source at the bottom of the page! Don't your editors bother to read the pages before tagging them?. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)