m Signing comment by Library777 - "→What about what I said above is unacceptable: " |
Library777 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
It was suggested by an editor that I raise the question on talk page or delete the entry. I deleted two entries not meeting guidelines and they are there again. I am not being allowed to edit this page AT ALL. I have a handicapped child and I dont have time to play games. I was really upset since this list says the movies are good budgeted and I paid to rent low budget pornos. I am under personal attack and I want to know who I can report this to. Im tired of these childish games. <nowiki>Library777</nowiki> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Library777|Library777]] ([[User talk:Library777|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Library777|contribs]]) 20:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
It was suggested by an editor that I raise the question on talk page or delete the entry. I deleted two entries not meeting guidelines and they are there again. I am not being allowed to edit this page AT ALL. I have a handicapped child and I dont have time to play games. I was really upset since this list says the movies are good budgeted and I paid to rent low budget pornos. I am under personal attack and I want to know who I can report this to. Im tired of these childish games. <nowiki>Library777</nowiki> <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Library777|Library777]] ([[User talk:Library777|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Library777|contribs]]) 20:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Signs of disruptive editing |
|||
Shortcut: |
|||
WP:DISRUPTSIGNS |
|||
See also Wikipedia:Editing policy |
|||
This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. |
|||
A disruptive editor is an editor who: |
|||
"Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." |
|||
Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. |
|||
Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. |
|||
Does not engage in consensus building: |
|||
repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; |
|||
repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. |
|||
"Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors." |
|||
In addition, such editors may: |
|||
Shortcuts: |
|||
WP:CTDAPE |
|||
WP:DEPE |
|||
"Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles." |
|||
The things in parenthesis is what is happening to me and I will report and I will take legal action if necessary as I am the wrong person to bully.<nowiki>Library777</nowiki> |
Revision as of 20:52, 20 October 2013
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Wikibreak | Third opinion $220 | Chance ? | Mediation $220 | Arbitration $240 | Jimbo Wales $200 | In the news $260 | On this day $260 | MediaWiki $150 | Did you know $280 | You are banned! |
RFA $200 | WIKIOPOLY | FPC $300 | ||||||||
PERM $180 | POTD $300 | |||||||||
Community discussion | Community discussion | |||||||||
Editor review $180 | FAC $320 | |||||||||
Developers $200 | Rouge admin $200 | |||||||||
Deletion review $160 | Chance ? | |||||||||
AFD $140 | TFA $350 | |||||||||
Wikimedia Foundation $150 | Edit war (pay $100) | |||||||||
CSD $140 | Main Page $400 |
|||||||||
WP:BANNED Just browsing | WikiProject Spam $120 | UAA $100 | Chance ? | AIV $100 | Admin cabal $200 | Teh Drahmaz (pay $200) | AN $60 | Community discussion | ANI $60 |
References
I just checked this page of yours, "List of characters and names in the Quran", nice, but you should really add some references to it. Cheers Bladesmulti (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
What about what I said above is unacceptable
What about what I said above is unacceptable? Its unacceptable to put "sexually explicit" in the same boxes they list "adult films" for the Gay movies. This is an example:
Zombies are Dead and Gay 2010 (Adult film)
Bloodlust Zombies 2009 (Sexually Explicit) <===what I put....this is unacceptable?????
They have intercourse ALL through the movie and its like watching Porn. One of the stars IS A PORN STAR!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Library777 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you have reliable sources to back up statements that you would like to put in articles, then add a citation to back up your statement. The format for a citation is: <ref name=bbc>{{cite news|last=Siddiqui|first=Mona|authorlink=Mona Siddiqui|title=Ibrahim – the Muslim view of Abraham|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/ibrahim.shtml|work=Religions|publisher=BBC|accessdate=3 February 2013}}</ref>
- What was unacceptable about the post you made on your talk page were the attacks on the editor who reverted your edits, which assumed good faith. These attacks included "this malicious editor", "is manipulating by just talking about the warning line", "reckless student without conscience or children that is abusing his power". You would not like it if the rest of us made statements about you like that.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Toddy, I have, according to policy and suggestion attempted TWICE to remove an opinionated statement from the Zombie list. What is wrong with this editor. Did he make this this?? He removed my comment stating there were low budget movies and sexual explicit which I referenced. The comment that the list contains good budgeted movies I want removed or I will start going through deleting the low budgets.
- He has removed EVERY edit I made, even those suggested and following guidelines, so yes at this point I am saying its personal for him. Unfortunately, there are people like this.--User:Library777 19:44, 20 October 2013
- Please could you learn to sign you posts on talk pages. The way to do this is: --~~~~
- He has removed EVERY edit I made, even those suggested and following guidelines, so yes at this point I am saying its personal for him. Unfortunately, there are people like this.--User:Library777 19:44, 20 October 2013
- I noticed that on some talk pages you are pasting your comment in very strange places. This makes it less likely that the comments will be read.
- What you call an opinionated statement, is what the rest of us call a statement defining what the article is about. Another editor told you that if some of the films listed do not meet the criteria, you should raise this on the article talk page. When you do this, you should provide links to sources that back up your contentions. If the only evidence you have that a film does not meet the criteria is that you have watched the film, be honest about this. It is probably best to make a bulleted list of the films you believe might not meet the inclusion criteria, with what you regard as evidence against each of them. The way to format bullet points in Wikipedia is with a * at the start of the line.
- Don't get angry with people. When you are angry, people are far less likely to listen to you (especially on the internet). Quite a lot of people have posted links to articles and guidelines that they think will help you. This indicates that they are trying to help you.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
It was suggested by an editor that I raise the question on talk page or delete the entry. I deleted two entries not meeting guidelines and they are there again. I am not being allowed to edit this page AT ALL. I have a handicapped child and I dont have time to play games. I was really upset since this list says the movies are good budgeted and I paid to rent low budget pornos. I am under personal attack and I want to know who I can report this to. Im tired of these childish games. Library777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Library777 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Signs of disruptive editing
Shortcut: WP:DISRUPTSIGNS See also Wikipedia:Editing policy This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who: "Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors."
Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified [citation needed] tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
"Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors."
In addition, such editors may: Shortcuts: WP:CTDAPE WP:DEPE "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles."
The things in parenthesis is what is happening to me and I will report and I will take legal action if necessary as I am the wrong person to bully.Library777