→Proto-Fascism: re |
88.104.60.179 (talk) →Proto-Fascism: thanks Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
:::::: Personal attacks aren't tolerated: you're permitted to remove that warning from your talk page, but don't engage in them again. Now I urge you to [[WP:DROPIT]] and go back to doing something else. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 14:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC) |
:::::: Personal attacks aren't tolerated: you're permitted to remove that warning from your talk page, but don't engage in them again. Now I urge you to [[WP:DROPIT]] and go back to doing something else. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' 14:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::::: Same thing over and over, act inappropriately & try to depersonalise by dancing about in a ragged poorly sewn dress of you believe to be officialese, the imperfections of what lies beneath shining through the whole time. The good thing about our little encounter is that if you ever do try to become an admin in the near future this little thread will provide valuable info about your character and approach. So keep going, you are one of these guys that needs to have the last word, & the more evidence for them the better. And maybe my time has not been wasted as much as I thought. [[Special:Contributions/88.104.60.179|88.104.60.179]] ([[User talk:88.104.60.179|talk]]) 14:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== ? == |
== ? == |
Revision as of 14:25, 19 May 2021
![]() |
Batley and Spen graph
Hey Czello,
I won't dispute your revert, though the by-election I meant was the previous one, where the only main party is Labour. The graph omits this and I'm not sure that makes the graph particularly useful. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Doktorbuk: Hi, I deliberately omitted that by-election for that very reason -- it doesn't demonstrate the change in vote share accurately (Labour hit 85% as no other party stood) and I felt that would be misleading to readers. — Czello 11:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Betty Boop
Can I ask why you blanked a WP:RS of an article from Time Magazine on the Betty Boop article? 197.87.63.222 (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@197.87.63.222: There's clearly an edit war going on, and your edits have been contested by someone else. I'm reverting to the status quo because it's time for this to be discussed on the talk page (or for the WP:ANI discussion to resolve). — Czello 08:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Proto-Fascism
I got your messages to me,. Don't take offense, but I suggest you get yourself a more experienced Wikipedian mentor to guide to help you understand the different between WP:BRD and 'disruptive editing' and how to treat Anonymous accounts WP:AGF. I was trying in good faith to remove inaccurate wording from the article. You can't call anything started in the 1970s 'proto-fascist', that would mean it pre-dated fascism, which obviously it doesn't. Even read the article itself, Proto-fascism. While it is true that a reference is used after the offending text, I checked to be sure but Professor Devine does not misuse the word 'proto' in the way the SNP wikipedia article suggests. The error has come from an editor, and you should if not help then at least not make it difficult to get it corrected. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@88.104.60.179: I assumed good faith to begin with and explained to you four times[1][2][3][4] that it was sourced. If you know WP:BRD then you know you should be discussing this on the talk page. However, you are not -- so I can only assume you're now being disruptive. — Czello 21:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is needlessly combative and abrasive. I used edit summaries to communicate the intention of my edits, and you blindly reverted each time. The only communication attempts on your part are completely inappropriate aggressive posts on my talk page that attempt to subvert BRD. The space on an article's talk page is only there for when it is necessary, such as frankly like now when an editor like yourself blindly reverts and ignores less drastic attempts to engage. So I have posted on Talk:Scottish National Party now.88.104.60.179 (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- @88.104.60.179: No, every single time I explained to you that the label was sourced, and you edit warred based on your own interpretation of the word. Again, if you are aware of BRD then you should know that after you are reverted once the onus is on you to take to the talk page, which you failed to do (until now -- so, I guess the warning had the desired effect). — Czello 22:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Stop talking shite about warnings, I didn't get any warnings, you spammed my page with aggressive messages while edit warring. I didn't take any notice of them, you are not an admin, you are just as it turns out an edit warrior who fights dirty and sees policy and guidelines documents as personal tools of aggression. You used the claim that it was sourced as an excuse to edit war and you were factually wrong about the citation; I actually did process your claim and inserted the relevant page reference, which you removed because you were just blind reverting. You don't get to make up rules about when talk pages are used, one is entitled to use them when one's judgment deems them necessary, I went there when it became clear you weren't listening and I needed the attention of other users, which I got... and it solved the issue. All you did there is post crap and poorly digested wonkery about why you think you were acting right and why I'm a baddie, but thankfully two other users still managed to wade through your verbal diarrhoea and see the issue. Thanks for the waste of time, hope you got whatever you wanted out of it. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- You really need to relax and stop trying to beat a dead horse here. Firstly yes, you did get warnings: that's what those messages were, and were a last resort after your edit warring. Secondly, you don't need to be an admin to deliver warnings to people. Next, the source was indeed wrong -- but you admitted yourself that you only looked it up after you were warned for the removal of sourced content. And I'm not making up any rules about how talk pages are used: you can check the WP:BRD guidelines you keep posting to see for yourself. As for what I wanted out of it: quite simply, that you discuss things on the talk page as BRD says you should. To be clear, as I've said many times, I have no issue with the removal of that term after the source was shown to be erroneous. That's not what you were doing, however. You can stop with this argument about who was right now -- I won't keep going in circles with you about how Wikipedia works. — Czello 13:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Same thing over and over, act inappropriately & try to depersonalise by dancing about in a ragged poorly sewn dress of you believe to be officialese, the imperfections of what lies beneath shining through the whole time. The good thing about our little encounter is that if you ever do try to become an admin in the near future this little thread will provide valuable info about your character and approach. So keep going, you are one of these guys that needs to have the last word, & the more evidence for them the better. And maybe my time has not been wasted as much as I thought. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
?
You have to also move the IWGP Heavyweight Championship because they have more than 70 reigns King Rudra 11:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @King Rudra: Hi, that's fine with me. To be honest I assumed it already had one -- 70 reigns is way too much. I'll split it in the next day or so. — Czello 12:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)