Time Will Say Nothing (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Time Will Say Nothing (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
You ask me to assume good faith. Well, I added a source. You removed it (check the revision history) and then complained that there were no sources! How was that helpful? I am not a new editor. I have added further sources but have not had time to do anything else with them. If you want me to assume good faith, you should also show it. I intend to edit this page gradually over a period of time. If that process is persistently undermined by pre-emptive editing, you make it impossible. I think it is you who were engaged in the edit war. [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing#top|talk]]) 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC) |
You ask me to assume good faith. Well, I added a source. You removed it (check the revision history) and then complained that there were no sources! How was that helpful? I am not a new editor. I have added further sources but have not had time to do anything else with them. If you want me to assume good faith, you should also show it. I intend to edit this page gradually over a period of time. If that process is persistently undermined by pre-emptive editing, you make it impossible. I think it is you who were engaged in the edit war. [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing#top|talk]]) 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
{{unblock reviewed|reason=I was not engaged in an edit war. The editor concerned was so engaged. [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing#top|talk]]) 17:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)|decline=You clearly were engaged in an edit war, and complaining about the behavior of everybody else is not going to get you unblocked. Please have a look at [[WP:NOTTHEM]]. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 17:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)}} |
{{unblock reviewed|reason=I was not engaged in an edit war. The editor concerned was so engaged. [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing#top|talk]]) 17:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)|decline=You clearly were effectively engaged in an edit war, and complaining about the behavior of everybody else is not going to get you unblocked. Please have a look at [[WP:NOTTHEM]]. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 17:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)}} |
||
I am complaining about the behaviour of one person, not everybody else. If they have a right to complain about me. I have the right to complain about them. [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing#top|talk]]) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC) |
I am complaining about the behaviour of one person, not everybody else. If they have a right to complain about me. I have the right to complain about them. [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing#top|talk]]) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
I note that Wikipedia was described to me earlier today as a private company. The .org suffix suggests that is not the case. Otherwise it would be wikipedia.com. Please clarify this point? [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing#top|talk]]) 17:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:41, 5 January 2011
From Amoammo
This is your talkpage - found it!
I got all your emails. I think that that blog you linked to was where i read it.
re: "I guess you're the one to do this?" i would have been happy to do it, but there shouldn't have been anything to stop you doing it (or any other good faith edits you want to make). Good luck with editing the articles you're interested in. I'm guessing you'll want to start an article Three Women (play)! Amo (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Scottish literature and a new outwardness
I don't regard Kennaway's living in England as notable for a Scottish writer. Off the top of my head the same could be said of Fred Urquhart, Aeneas MacDonald or A J Cronin and many other mid-C20 writers. The paragraph where you are inserting Kennaway is about something rather different - writers whose practice was intervention in other cultural areas (France in the cases of Trocchi and White) and known through that rather than activity in their native land. A distinction that is clear , I think, in MacDiarmid's denunciation of Trocchi as "cosmopolitan scum" at the 1962 Edinburgh Writers Festival. I will be reverting the Kennaway insertion again, on grounds of non-notability to the subject at hand; if you want to discuss that further we can take it to the Talk page. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- As I suggested above, differences of opinion are best covered on the Talk:Scottish literature page. I'll put a brief summary and references to the views expressed on our respective Talk pages onto that page. It's not a heavily used page, but that will give others the opportunity to put their views as and when they read it. AllyD (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
James Kennaway and place of death?
BTW there seems to be as contradiction in the article: place of death in the article given as M4 but Infobox as Scotland? The article is unreferenced (maybe something to address before a notice gets put on it) and I have no referenced information to fix on either myself, so I thought I'd mention to you, given your obvious interest. AllyD (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to see the tone of your response on my Talk page to what I regarded as a friendly query with regard to improving the Kennaway article. AllyD (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Rereading the rest of your Talk page, perhaps you may have misunderstood something - I was not suggesting that the Kennaway article could have a Deletion notice put on it. Far from it, he rightly has a page. What I was meaning is that it could have an Unreferenced notice put on it: the general principle is that anything should be backed up by references to published sources and it is good to add these when editing with info to hand. That was all. AllyD (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
January 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Up to Now (autobiography). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You must stop removing those tags. The 'under construction' tag is not justification for removing them. The tags are there to get other editors to help, why are you trying to stop them? Articles with those tags are easy to find by editors who like to add references. Please put them back. If you carry on like this you are going to get blocked. People are trying to help but you must understand the article should follow our guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not engaged in an edit war with anyone. Please assume good faith. I am building the page slowly. Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built You are not giving enough time to make the adjustments you seek, nor is your editing in any way positive or constructive. You are actively disrupting the construction of this page. You removed a source I had put there and then you complained there were no sources. You then inserted a reference to a wholly irrelevant text, then removed it and tagged the page for no references. This could easily be construed as vandalism. If anyone is engaged in an edit war, it's you. Wait until it's finished, or at least, in a better state of readiness before tagging. I'd suggest the three-revert rule doesn't only apply to me. I don't need help at this stage, except possibly to be liberated from oppressive editing and inappropriate, stress-inducing bullying. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- "oppressive editing and inappropriate, stress-inducing bullying" -- I'm thinking you didn't get around to reading WP:No personal attacks yet? Now would be a very good time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Alleging an edit war and disruptive editing are also personal attacks, especially when the al;legations are wholly false. It seems the rules are applied selectively and unfairly. There is a deliberate intention to cause distress implicit in any such conduct. That is inappropriate by any normal standards. If the actions of any person are inappropriate, I am entitled to say so, indeed I should do so, otherwise they are allowed to go by default. You should give appropriate attention to inappropriate conduct by anyone who engages in it. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Sigh, too late. Here's what I was trying to add while you kept revising your post:
- If you want people to assume good faith you need to offer it. I've spent too much time looking for resources to help the page to take your comments kindly. How about assuming that experienced editors know what they are doing? We like to help new editors but we need cooperation from them. Tagging can help the article, removing the tags doesn't. Insulting people doesn't help anything. You didn't have a source, you just added the name and publisher and date of the book again, as I've said, the sources need to be about the book, not proving its existence. And I have NOT tagged the article at any point for anything, let alone 'no references' but I have tagged a statement within the article.
- I see you've added some sources, but they haven't been used. If they aren't used as references, call them 'Further reading', if they really used as sources in the article then they get inline citations (and aren't in 'further reading'. Will you please post to the article talk page telling us what the new sources are sources for, at least? That would show good faith and a willingness to work with other users. You have to work with other editors, you can't do this on your own.
- Now that you've been blocked, if you post here about your new sources I can copy it over to the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
You ask me to assume good faith. Well, I added a source. You removed it (check the revision history) and then complained that there were no sources! How was that helpful? I am not a new editor. I have added further sources but have not had time to do anything else with them. If you want me to assume good faith, you should also show it. I intend to edit this page gradually over a period of time. If that process is persistently undermined by pre-emptive editing, you make it impossible. I think it is you who were engaged in the edit war. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Time Will Say Nothing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was not engaged in an edit war. The editor concerned was so engaged. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You clearly were effectively engaged in an edit war, and complaining about the behavior of everybody else is not going to get you unblocked. Please have a look at WP:NOTTHEM. Favonian (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2011 (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 am complaining about the behaviour of one person, not everybody else. If they have a right to complain about me. I have the right to complain about them. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I note that Wikipedia was described to me earlier today as a private company. The .org suffix suggests that is not the case. Otherwise it would be wikipedia.com. Please clarify this point? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)