|
![]() |
Hi Commissioner Gordon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Please read WP:3RR Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
The section is titled "User:Commissioner Gordon and disruptive editing at Robert Falcon Scott" Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk)
23:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
While in the Shackleton article, every single military decoration is mentioned, some have unabashdly and barefacedly swept Scott's decorations completely under the carpet:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Shackleton "Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton [ˈɜɻnɛst ˈhɛnɻi ˈʃækəltən] CVO, OBE (Mil.), LL.D,[1] OLH[2]"
Robert_Falcon_Scott "Robert Falcon Scott, CVO"
To go right into the matter of Ruhrfisch's attempt to falsely and pretendedly block me, he was coincidentally the one who removed information about Scott receiving the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) Distinguished_Service_Order(in the edit I used as proof for his misbehaviour and he ended up trying to turn the tables on me) with an overly, overly paltry excuse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Robert_Falcon_Scott&diff=482463696&oldid=482420783
One can only shake his head at such blatant exorbitance.
Ruhrfisch, please stop using Wikipedia as a tool to conceal facts and foisting misrepresantations on the Wikipedia community!-- Commissioner Gordon ( talk) 14:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
And once again, could you have the spark of decency of stopping to threaten me and to swag the finger at me for the nth time!? You aren't even remotely giving ANY justification for your accusations and you aren't offering any argumentations about my critic on your (mis-)behaviours concerning my suggestions for improvement of the article and your incessant tries to disrupt them. The only reason you got away with your false prentend of blocking me is, that the person who decided to believe you without checking the facts is chummy with you and his view through the rose-coloured glasses of sympathy.
What got the ball rolling is that you recently have linked the Scott article to an outrageous and heavily one-sided commentary that has not the least to do with the principles of Wikipedia and repeatedly tried to hinder me to correct this misalignment and ended up trying to criminalize me and block me. All my other edits have been additions to improve the quality and neutrality of the article and the fact that you are trying to accuse me of "disruptive editing" shows that you are way off reality and have rigged and construed the matter.
As a gentleman, the first thing to do would be acknowledging that and at least taking back the "disruptiveness" accusation, for now,or even more truthful to withdraw all false pretenses and , but I don't know whether you have the guts or the class to do that...--
Commissioner Gordon (
talk)
16:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
A gentleman would also immediately withdraw the outrageous "Controversies" Article, as it is actually a shame for Wikipedia to have such lopside included. The fact that you are waving the flag for this is greatly undermining your credibility, from my point of view.-- Commissioner Gordon ( talk) 17:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Concerning the alleged personal attack, which you put into the plural version but only stating a single possible case: Like you said in the discussion, you didn't even exactly know what "defraud" means at first, when feeling attacked personally. I can tell you that what I meant was an equivalent to the German word "unterschlagen, im Sinne von dem Leser vorenthalten", and "to defraud" is one possible translation. Whereas I should have probably used a not so strong word, like deprive or withhold, I actually exercised clemency by not putting the reproach on the discussion page but leave it rather hidden only communicating it in the version history.-- Commissioner Gordon ( talk) 17:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk)
21:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
|
![]() |
Hi Commissioner Gordon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Please read WP:3RR Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
The section is titled "User:Commissioner Gordon and disruptive editing at Robert Falcon Scott" Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk)
23:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
While in the Shackleton article, every single military decoration is mentioned, some have unabashdly and barefacedly swept Scott's decorations completely under the carpet:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Shackleton "Sir Ernest Henry Shackleton [ˈɜɻnɛst ˈhɛnɻi ˈʃækəltən] CVO, OBE (Mil.), LL.D,[1] OLH[2]"
Robert_Falcon_Scott "Robert Falcon Scott, CVO"
To go right into the matter of Ruhrfisch's attempt to falsely and pretendedly block me, he was coincidentally the one who removed information about Scott receiving the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) Distinguished_Service_Order(in the edit I used as proof for his misbehaviour and he ended up trying to turn the tables on me) with an overly, overly paltry excuse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Robert_Falcon_Scott&diff=482463696&oldid=482420783
One can only shake his head at such blatant exorbitance.
Ruhrfisch, please stop using Wikipedia as a tool to conceal facts and foisting misrepresantations on the Wikipedia community!-- Commissioner Gordon ( talk) 14:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
And once again, could you have the spark of decency of stopping to threaten me and to swag the finger at me for the nth time!? You aren't even remotely giving ANY justification for your accusations and you aren't offering any argumentations about my critic on your (mis-)behaviours concerning my suggestions for improvement of the article and your incessant tries to disrupt them. The only reason you got away with your false prentend of blocking me is, that the person who decided to believe you without checking the facts is chummy with you and his view through the rose-coloured glasses of sympathy.
What got the ball rolling is that you recently have linked the Scott article to an outrageous and heavily one-sided commentary that has not the least to do with the principles of Wikipedia and repeatedly tried to hinder me to correct this misalignment and ended up trying to criminalize me and block me. All my other edits have been additions to improve the quality and neutrality of the article and the fact that you are trying to accuse me of "disruptive editing" shows that you are way off reality and have rigged and construed the matter.
As a gentleman, the first thing to do would be acknowledging that and at least taking back the "disruptiveness" accusation, for now,or even more truthful to withdraw all false pretenses and , but I don't know whether you have the guts or the class to do that...--
Commissioner Gordon (
talk)
16:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
A gentleman would also immediately withdraw the outrageous "Controversies" Article, as it is actually a shame for Wikipedia to have such lopside included. The fact that you are waving the flag for this is greatly undermining your credibility, from my point of view.-- Commissioner Gordon ( talk) 17:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Concerning the alleged personal attack, which you put into the plural version but only stating a single possible case: Like you said in the discussion, you didn't even exactly know what "defraud" means at first, when feeling attacked personally. I can tell you that what I meant was an equivalent to the German word "unterschlagen, im Sinne von dem Leser vorenthalten", and "to defraud" is one possible translation. Whereas I should have probably used a not so strong word, like deprive or withhold, I actually exercised clemency by not putting the reproach on the discussion page but leave it rather hidden only communicating it in the version history.-- Commissioner Gordon ( talk) 17:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk)
21:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)