Please do not attack other editors, as you did at: Talk:Manhood (Law & Order). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. If personal attacks continue, you may be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Mifter (
talk)
13:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Hi! As a quick suggestion, you really should consider raising the sourcing issue at the reliable sources noticeboard - at the moment you and MelbourneStar seem to be arguing in circles, and it isn't likely to come to a decent resolution. I'm not sure how it would pan out, but none of the outcomes seem appealing. If you raise it there you'll have a fairly definitive ruling - if they find it a sufficiently reliable source, then there shouldn't be any more problems in retaining the content. Personally, I don't have a problem with using TV episodes as sources for their own content, but getting a neutral third party to comment seems like the best way forward. - Bilby ( talk) 15:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Manhood (Law & Order), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bidgee ( talk) 08:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Melburnian (
talk)
09:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Hi!
It's the 19th of June...meaning the Manhood article will be open to edits again. To take a better approach on this, I think we both should discuss more respectively and civilly. I understand where you are coming from on this issue, but let me stress this out to you, that there are some things that you'll have to understand, to where I'm coming from on this issue, and then everything will work perfectly. Thank You. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 07:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Manhood (Law & Order), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 05:27, 3 July 2011 (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. |
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at: Talk:Manhood (Law & Order). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. If personal attacks continue, you may be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
below this notice, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Mifter (
talk)
13:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Hi! As a quick suggestion, you really should consider raising the sourcing issue at the reliable sources noticeboard - at the moment you and MelbourneStar seem to be arguing in circles, and it isn't likely to come to a decent resolution. I'm not sure how it would pan out, but none of the outcomes seem appealing. If you raise it there you'll have a fairly definitive ruling - if they find it a sufficiently reliable source, then there shouldn't be any more problems in retaining the content. Personally, I don't have a problem with using TV episodes as sources for their own content, but getting a neutral third party to comment seems like the best way forward. - Bilby ( talk) 15:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Manhood (Law & Order), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bidgee ( talk) 08:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Melburnian (
talk)
09:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Hi!
It's the 19th of June...meaning the Manhood article will be open to edits again. To take a better approach on this, I think we both should discuss more respectively and civilly. I understand where you are coming from on this issue, but let me stress this out to you, that there are some things that you'll have to understand, to where I'm coming from on this issue, and then everything will work perfectly. Thank You. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 07:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Manhood (Law & Order), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 05:27, 3 July 2011 (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. |