Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) m You have been blocked for making legal threats. (TW) |
Ottava Rima (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
== March 2008 == |
== March 2008 == |
||
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''blocked indefinitely''' from editing in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for making [[WP:NLT|legal threats]]. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threat stands. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at '''[mailto:info-en@wikimedia.org info-en@wikimedia.org]''' and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest this block]] 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. {{#if:true|<font face="Blackadder" color="#2B0066">[[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 00:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3}} -->[[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages|{{PAGENAME}}]] |
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''blocked indefinitely''' from editing in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for making [[WP:NLT|legal threats]]. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threat stands. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at '''[mailto:info-en@wikimedia.org info-en@wikimedia.org]''' and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest this block]] 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. {{#if:true|<font face="Blackadder" color="#2B0066">[[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]]</font> <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 00:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)|}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block3}} -->[[Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages|{{PAGENAME}}]] |
||
{{unblock|I have not made Legal Threats on Wikipedia, nor is there a link to a diff to prove such. The above admin is clearly mistaken. }} |
Revision as of 00:40, 22 March 2008
Wikibreak for Lent.
Portmanteau
Hi there, I saw you've been changing a lot of instances of the word "portmanteau", claiming they are improper uses of the term. I'm not sure why, though, these are improper uses, since a definition of portmanteau is "a new word formed by joining two others and combining their meanings". Could you perhaps enlighten me? -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 02:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
On User talk:BlastOButter42, Ottava Rima said:
Portmanteau is a term used to describe the playful use of Carroll's words, in which they took two words, blended them together, then make it impossible to see where one word meets another, so they are no longer proper blends (you can't recognize another word inside, see the use of slithy, which is s(lithy) lithe and sli(thy) slimy). However, people, out of zeal, see all words as portmanteau. Blends are any word that are combined together but not in their original form. Compounds are two words combined together with most of their original form. Amalgamation of acronyms is where you merge acronyms. For the word to be proper Carrollinian, it would have to have major criss crossing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottava Rima (talk • contribs) 02:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's not the description given at portmanteau and many of the words at [1] do not follow the rule you suggest. I have reverted your edit on Delmarva Peninsula, unless you can provide better evidence that "Delmarva" is not a portmanteau word. Pilch62 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this. The OED recognises both senses of portmanteau, so there is no reason to change every "portmanteau" into "blend". Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- See longer comments on this subject at Talk:Portmanteau#This Page is Wrong. Your campaign against "portmanteau" is not supported by reliable sources, I'm afraid. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
On my talk page you wrote:
- Please look up blend before you try to correct it. Portmanteau words are specific instances of such things, and have special rules about them. It would be very hard to accidentally create one, and they involve syllabillic sounding. You are confusing compounds, blends, and the rest as portmanteau, which is inaccurate. The reason why I stated that the page was "wrong" was from the fact that portmanteau bags were kept separate, since they are one and the same. That is how analogies work. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I can only repeat that this distinction isn't borne out by the sources. Check the Punch quotation from 1896: it's the first known use of the word "brunch" and it's described as a "portmanteau word". Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If...
If there isn't a Wikipedia barnstar for getting rid of that awful word, well, there damn well should be. :)
Thanks for the work. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 07:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Rolling back portmanteau changes
There's obviously resistance to this change, and you haven't made a good case for why the OED isn't a reliable source for current usage of the word. I'd ask that you refrain from changing any more instances of this word until such point as there's consensus that you're in the right. For now, I'm going to revert these if I see them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Likewise. The OED is a perfectly reliable -- if not the perfectly reliable --- source for this. Nandesuka (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
More portmanteau
- You need to stop doing this. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your particular linguistic preference, and you are clearly working against consensus. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Administrators' notice board
I've raised the portmanteau issue here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- You don't have to convince me, though I think you're trying to enforce the literary sense of the word while ignoring the colloquial sense. You do have to work collaboratively with other editors and since you now have multiple editors disagreeing with your changes, please work out a consensus with them first. Admins have no special editorial powers, so either your mistaken that one "authorized" you or that person over-stepped a bit; its quite possible that an admin agreed with you, but that's different than carte blanche to ignore other editor's concerns.
- If you're correct, I'm sure everyone can work together to come to that conclusion. Nothings going to be hurt by taking a bit to discuss this first. Shell babelfish 16:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are other times mass corrections are done, especially in the case of spelling or grammar. But even in those simple cases, if there are objections, the right thing is to stop and deal with them, regardless of how wrong you feel the other parties may be.
- Actually I think you'll find that Wikipedia treats expert and colloquial in a similar manner. We certainly don't exclude a prevailing opinion simply because linguists believe its wrong (see WP:NPOV where this is discussed in detail).
- Ah Carroll and the cult that sprung forth -- yes, his first uses the word like, but the second reference does not. Regardless, I'm not sure Humpty Dumpty would be considered an expert on the subject. Unfortunately, the book was a popular one and from it was born a vast misconception about the technical use of the term. But, technically incorrect or not, its a widespread misconception and thus ends up with coverage in Wikipedia.
- Again though, whether or not we change any use of the word to be "technically" correct is in need of a discussion since there are people objecting to your actions. Shell babelfish 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Warning on OR
By editing Portmanteau, you have stepped into OR. You have removed background on Lewis Carroll, which is incorrect, and removed the true definition of the term, which Lewis Carroll and the current use requires for an understanding. To do such is to commit OR, without any source to back up such. I suggest you correct yourself at once. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you've misunderstood the nature of the wikipedia. Please read Talk:Portmanteau#Dictionaries_vs_encyclopedias.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 18:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Crusade
Please take a moment away from your crusade and have a cup of tea. Wikipedia works by concensus, and even if you are right, editwarring will not help you reach your goal. Leaving the articles at the wrong version and discussing with editors is probably the best way of eventually reaching your goal. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
You were asked numerous times to stop edit warring and discuss your edits. Being WP:BOLD is perfectly fine, but when reverted, the next course of action is to discuss. Please take some time to think about how you can resolve this dispute when you return from your block. Shell babelfish 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Ottava Rima (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
3RR is committing more than 3 Reverts. I have committed three edits, and only two can be considered "reverts", and the last was done because the previous user mistook what the change was, by claiming it was adding the word "blend" which clearly does not appear, and is thus in good faith and not a revert. In addition, one of my above reverts was against vandalism, so it does not count as a revert. Thus, I only reverted once. See my second "revert": [2]
Decline reason:
WP:3RR does not give you a bright line to go up to three reverts and then stop. You have clearly been edit warring across a very large number of articles to push your point of view on the usage of a term. This is very disruptive and against the spirit and the letter of our rules. Gwernol 22:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I edited four times. The first was to remove the word Portmanteau and add in blend. The second was to revert a revert. The third was to remove blatant vandalism. The fourth was to correct a mistake on a revert that claimed I reverted something to "blend", which I did not, and is clearly good faith. There is no 3RR violation.
- You were edit warring across at least (and I'm being generous here) 20 articles over the same change even after having been counseled here and on ANI to stop and discuss. You are correct that you only made 3 reverts to one single article, but more than 40 of your last 100 edits have been reverts over the same word and all after you were warned. Shell babelfish 21:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, you are clearly wrong. One of my edits was against vandalism, and I did not revert more than twice. That is, unless you think "A colloquialism in the British music DAMN CRACKERS!!" is acceptable to be on Wikipedia and should not be removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point here. There are other articles you reverted three times, plus more than 40 that you reverted at least twice and all over the same issue. That's very widespread and disruptive edit warring :( Shell babelfish 22:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- If this was wide spread disruptive edit warning, you would have blocked all parties. Instead, you chose not to, and there have been other parties that have reverted three or more times. Your double standard and your lack of actually reading the reverts shows an abuse of authority, and I have filed an official complaint against you over that. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- And you are sorely mistaken. All instances of me producing "three" reverts are false. The one you provided included me removing blatant vandalism, and the one provided below shows the same thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point here. There are other articles you reverted three times, plus more than 40 that you reverted at least twice and all over the same issue. That's very widespread and disruptive edit warring :( Shell babelfish 22:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, you are clearly wrong. One of my edits was against vandalism, and I did not revert more than twice. That is, unless you think "A colloquialism in the British music DAMN CRACKERS!!" is acceptable to be on Wikipedia and should not be removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- You were edit warring across at least (and I'm being generous here) 20 articles over the same change even after having been counseled here and on ANI to stop and discuss. You are correct that you only made 3 reverts to one single article, but more than 40 of your last 100 edits have been reverts over the same word and all after you were warned. Shell babelfish 21:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- NB: The history of Mockumentary also shows a 3RR violation. Pilch62 (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, it shows three reverts. A violation is four. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies. I've reverted Mockumentary from Blend to Portmanteau. Pilch62 (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, you are wrong, because I reverted TWICE, one of the three changes was against vandalism. Thus, I still didn't make a third revert. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies. I've reverted Mockumentary from Blend to Portmanteau. Pilch62 (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, it shows three reverts. A violation is four. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- NB: The history of Mockumentary also shows a 3RR violation. Pilch62 (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I refer Ottava to actually read 3RR: "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, according to WP:STALK, the user that was "edit warring" with me was violating Wikipedia policy, and he received no warning. Such behavior is deemed, as in the past, as disruptive, and is being continued by you, yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is the above post speaking to my previous post - i.e. does the "wikistalking... is being continued by you, yourself" reflect an accusation of wikistalking against me? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- According to standard English grammatical rules that define the use of "periods", "subjects", "objects", and clauses, the appropriate connection of the sentence to the use of the word "you" is "disruptive". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- As you have been told, making random accusations of wikistalking is a serious breach of standards. Please provide evidence to back any such accusations that you wish to make against me or redact that statement. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I have stated previously, I accused you of aiding disruption. If you bring it up a third time, I can only state this again, seeing as how it was a mistake in how you read the previous statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Apology accepted.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- There is no apology. I stated that you were being disruptive. You claimed I was saying other things. You continue to disrupt. I ask that you stop using my talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I have stated previously, I accused you of aiding disruption. If you bring it up a third time, I can only state this again, seeing as how it was a mistake in how you read the previous statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- As you have been told, making random accusations of wikistalking is a serious breach of standards. Please provide evidence to back any such accusations that you wish to make against me or redact that statement. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- According to standard English grammatical rules that define the use of "periods", "subjects", "objects", and clauses, the appropriate connection of the sentence to the use of the word "you" is "disruptive". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is the above post speaking to my previous post - i.e. does the "wikistalking... is being continued by you, yourself" reflect an accusation of wikistalking against me? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, according to WP:STALK, the user that was "edit warring" with me was violating Wikipedia policy, and he received no warning. Such behavior is deemed, as in the past, as disruptive, and is being continued by you, yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I refer Ottava to actually read 3RR: "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Appointment_blue.svg/48px-Appointment_blue.svg.png)
Ottava Rima (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=For the following reasons: 1. Original admin stated I reverted three times. That has been proven that I have not reverted over twice. 2. The other user [[user:Stephen Turner]], who has reverted twice and even thrice, has not been warned or blocked. 3. I received admin approval to make the mass edit changes, whereas, the other user followed me across multiple articles, breaking [[WP:STALK]] and made mass changes that broke Wikipedia policy 4. The linguistic definition only acknowledges blend, and there is no verifiable source that would accept the usage of [[portmanteau]] in determining linguistic understanding in the way that it has been overused. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=For the following reasons: 1. Original admin stated I reverted three times. That has been proven that I have not reverted over twice. 2. The other user [[user:Stephen Turner]], who has reverted twice and even thrice, has not been warned or blocked. 3. I received admin approval to make the mass edit changes, whereas, the other user followed me across multiple articles, breaking [[WP:STALK]] and made mass changes that broke Wikipedia policy 4. The linguistic definition only acknowledges blend, and there is no verifiable source that would accept the usage of [[portmanteau]] in determining linguistic understanding in the way that it has been overused. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=For the following reasons: 1. Original admin stated I reverted three times. That has been proven that I have not reverted over twice. 2. The other user [[user:Stephen Turner]], who has reverted twice and even thrice, has not been warned or blocked. 3. I received admin approval to make the mass edit changes, whereas, the other user followed me across multiple articles, breaking [[WP:STALK]] and made mass changes that broke Wikipedia policy 4. The linguistic definition only acknowledges blend, and there is no verifiable source that would accept the usage of [[portmanteau]] in determining linguistic understanding in the way that it has been overused. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Re: Wiki Stalking
Please do not throw words around like stalking and harrassment. Making such allegations is extremely serious and inappropriate. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is serious, and you have breached Wikipedia etiquette by following me through various threads. It is against the rules to follow people across multiple articles in the manner that you have done. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Stephen's actions are perfectly justified given the breadth of your recent edits. I implore you to stop accusing others of bad faith while your own actions are under such close scrutiny. Regardless of whether you think you're in the right, you're disrupting the project and will end up being unable to edit at all if you continue like this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Stephen's actions are not justified according to any standard by Wikipedia. The only just action he could have taken was to report my action. You should know this, and by not acting, you are disrupting Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- And for everyone's knowledge, thumperward, the above user, is not an admin, and is not in any position to act like one. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Stephen's actions are perfectly justified given the breadth of your recent edits. I implore you to stop accusing others of bad faith while your own actions are under such close scrutiny. Regardless of whether you think you're in the right, you're disrupting the project and will end up being unable to edit at all if you continue like this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
March 2008
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Stop_x_nuvola.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola.svg.png)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Appointment_blue.svg/48px-Appointment_blue.svg.png)
Ottava Rima (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have not made Legal Threats on Wikipedia, nor is there a link to a diff to prove such. The above admin is clearly mistaken. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have not made Legal Threats on Wikipedia, nor is there a link to a diff to prove such. The above admin is clearly mistaken. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have not made Legal Threats on Wikipedia, nor is there a link to a diff to prove such. The above admin is clearly mistaken. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}