Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from
The Elements of Style. When removing text, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Skomorokh
18:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from
attacking other contributors, as you did with
this edit to
The Elements of Style. Continued personal attacks may lead to being
blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you.
Zhang He (
talk)
18:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add
unsourced or
original content, as you did with
this edit to
The Elements of Style. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Zhang He (
talk)
19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not continue adding the Leddy blog post to The Elements of Style. Because several editors have already removed it, Wikipedia policy is that now you should stop edit warring and engage in discussion, at the article's talk page, to reach a consensus. I have already started a discussion at Talk:The Elements of Style#Leddy blog post. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 04:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I am no longer citing the Leddy post - but now cite the Chronicle itself - same Chronicle that was cited to support much of the material already there. Thank you, and kindest regards.
So, let me get this straight - tell me if this will do: Some of those folks are anything but random, although un-notable. A “notable source” to disagree with Pullum, and further the notable source can’t just be a blog post, but must be close to a published article of sorts, like a literary magazine? Do you understand what that does? Look, if I make the statement that Brett Favre going to the Minnesota Vikings have cause a lot of Packer fans to hate him, would the support for that statement not be citation to a few sports blogs in which people (non-notable random people) have expressed hatred for his defection to the Vikings? Popular sentiment has to have some way of being reflected here folks. Strunk and White is a very widely taught, followed, and read book, and if there are enough literary enthusiasts, professors, and non-notable but English speaking people that disagree with it, don't you think that's worth mentioning? And, what evidence do you expect to support that proposition if not blogs or posts showing the sentiments of such common folks?
Do I really need to cite to an article in USA today by the editor of the new york times or JRR Tolkien saying "Pullum's criticisms have struck a chord amongst the literary community" for you to be able to put something in? Is this what you are looking for?
Regarding this edit that you just made after returning from your block:
How many times to do I need to ask you to read the reliable sources policy? Forum postings by random people are not reliable sources and there is not any consensus for adding them.
And how many times do I need to ask you to read the policy on consensus? When you already know that your edits are controversial and you already know that editors have expressed concern with them, you should not be making more edits that you know are disagreed with. Again, if you want to include something, first suggest it at a talk page and gain consensus for its inclusion before you go ahead and add it. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Apparently you still have not read the edit warring policy for which you were blocked yesterday, because already you're starting to make controversial edits again without discussion, and against the existing consensus. It is not ok to keep on restoring your edit in slightly different versions, saying "is this ok yet?" each time. Because we have already reached a point where the edits are controversial, the only appropriate way for you to be editing this is to suggest additions at the talk page, and not add them until they gain the consensus of other editors. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
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.
rʨanaɢ
talk/
contribs
22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from
The Elements of Style. When removing text, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Skomorokh
18:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from
attacking other contributors, as you did with
this edit to
The Elements of Style. Continued personal attacks may lead to being
blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you.
Zhang He (
talk)
18:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add
unsourced or
original content, as you did with
this edit to
The Elements of Style. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Zhang He (
talk)
19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not continue adding the Leddy blog post to The Elements of Style. Because several editors have already removed it, Wikipedia policy is that now you should stop edit warring and engage in discussion, at the article's talk page, to reach a consensus. I have already started a discussion at Talk:The Elements of Style#Leddy blog post. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 04:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I am no longer citing the Leddy post - but now cite the Chronicle itself - same Chronicle that was cited to support much of the material already there. Thank you, and kindest regards.
So, let me get this straight - tell me if this will do: Some of those folks are anything but random, although un-notable. A “notable source” to disagree with Pullum, and further the notable source can’t just be a blog post, but must be close to a published article of sorts, like a literary magazine? Do you understand what that does? Look, if I make the statement that Brett Favre going to the Minnesota Vikings have cause a lot of Packer fans to hate him, would the support for that statement not be citation to a few sports blogs in which people (non-notable random people) have expressed hatred for his defection to the Vikings? Popular sentiment has to have some way of being reflected here folks. Strunk and White is a very widely taught, followed, and read book, and if there are enough literary enthusiasts, professors, and non-notable but English speaking people that disagree with it, don't you think that's worth mentioning? And, what evidence do you expect to support that proposition if not blogs or posts showing the sentiments of such common folks?
Do I really need to cite to an article in USA today by the editor of the new york times or JRR Tolkien saying "Pullum's criticisms have struck a chord amongst the literary community" for you to be able to put something in? Is this what you are looking for?
Regarding this edit that you just made after returning from your block:
How many times to do I need to ask you to read the reliable sources policy? Forum postings by random people are not reliable sources and there is not any consensus for adding them.
And how many times do I need to ask you to read the policy on consensus? When you already know that your edits are controversial and you already know that editors have expressed concern with them, you should not be making more edits that you know are disagreed with. Again, if you want to include something, first suggest it at a talk page and gain consensus for its inclusion before you go ahead and add it. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Apparently you still have not read the edit warring policy for which you were blocked yesterday, because already you're starting to make controversial edits again without discussion, and against the existing consensus. It is not ok to keep on restoring your edit in slightly different versions, saying "is this ok yet?" each time. Because we have already reached a point where the edits are controversial, the only appropriate way for you to be editing this is to suggest additions at the talk page, and not add them until they gain the consensus of other editors. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
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.
rʨanaɢ
talk/
contribs
22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |