- This comment that you made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma Ge (actress) contains multiple personal attacks. I would highly recommend that you reword it to be less aggressive. Continued uncivil behavior towards other editors may result in you being blocked from editing. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
---> Re: Rosguill
Have you ever read the WHOLE conversations on the page and considered that my word choices to the user Adamant1 contained too much aggression, nonetheless Adamant1 had already slammed the article's potential notability to the same extent or more aggressively: for example, concluding the article has “Essentially nothing”?
Do you believe it is permitted for a user on Wikipedia to freely put down an article's reputation with no objective perspectives nor verified facts, meanwhile I am warned to stop from just listing up the facts and faults Adamant1 made in a democratic way?
I wish you could lecture me what the justice and equality are on Wikipedia, unless you knew less about it than I do.
Supremarguax (
talk)
19:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Adamant1 concisely described their objections to the article's content, which is allowed. You called their statements "delusions" and "dogmatic arrogance", which is crossing a line. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
---> Re: Rosguill
What about these expressions that Adamant1 dropped in the statement?:
- "the article smells like a non-neutral puff piece"
- "the Xinhua (via syndicate)"
- "and is just as puffy"
Such informal and non-academic word choices shall be considered almost slangs, which could guarantee scarce objectivity in the field of encyclopedic negotiations.
Adamant1 has called my expressions in the article using those phrases above, which is allowed according to your own perspective.
However, the way I called his expressions "delusions" and "dogmatic arrogance" is excessive in the same criteria of yours?
Specify the absolute DIFFERENCES between the linguistic behaviors of mine and Adamant1's, with referring to the official objective guidelines of Wikipedia, as far as you would impose me upon achieving the level of objectivity that you suggest.
Supremarguax (
talk) 7:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Puffery is a commonly used term on Wikipedia, see WP:PUFF, and there's nothing insulting about saying that the Xinhua piece is syndicated so I'm not really sure what you think is the matter there. Ironically, you failed to identify some actual (mild) insults in Adamant1's response. But your needling them about their grammar is a particularly egregious response, and I had already warned you beforehand. signed, Rosguill talk 16:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
---> Re: Rosguill
As you see in the conversations above, Adamant1 has never called the reference sites completely determined
PUFF but just "smelling like" that without close verifications.
All the same manners are seen everywhere in Adamant1's paragraphs as assuming with no proof that I am a COI editor or paid author who created the article, branding the external sources useless with no deep research, misleading as if a website operated by a company which is owned by another company had no neutrality, claiming the irrelevance of a source to the article which actually contains relevant information, disregarding multiple sources without specifying references to what are the truly certified reliable forms of sources on Wikipedia, etc.
In addition, I was told in the field of Italian Wikipedia that my article could not stay there unless I wrote it in the grammatically perfect Italian language in which they ordinarily speak.
Why could Adamant1's statement stay in the field of English Wikipedia nevertheless any completely unmanned neutral machines that examine grammatical and semantic errors shall regard the statement as partially incomprehensible?
The most obviously I have used no words in the discussions that contain aggression, offence, insult or egrigiousness according to the official defonitions of the world's most credible English dictionaries like the Cambridge's and the Oxford's.
What on Earth is your "objective source" to judge that my phrases clearly "attacked" any user on Wikipedia?
The usage of those locally used slangs here like
PUFF have ever had no chance to be teached in any school education system around the world, and it is unrealistic to be taken for granted that every Wikipedia user is more familiar to them than to the correct grammars of formal English contexts.
Supremarguax (
talk)
16:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- This comment that you made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma Ge (actress) contains multiple personal attacks. I would highly recommend that you reword it to be less aggressive. Continued uncivil behavior towards other editors may result in you being blocked from editing. signed, Rosguill talk 18:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
---> Re: Rosguill
Have you ever read the WHOLE conversations on the page and considered that my word choices to the user Adamant1 contained too much aggression, nonetheless Adamant1 had already slammed the article's potential notability to the same extent or more aggressively: for example, concluding the article has “Essentially nothing”?
Do you believe it is permitted for a user on Wikipedia to freely put down an article's reputation with no objective perspectives nor verified facts, meanwhile I am warned to stop from just listing up the facts and faults Adamant1 made in a democratic way?
I wish you could lecture me what the justice and equality are on Wikipedia, unless you knew less about it than I do.
Supremarguax (
talk)
19:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Adamant1 concisely described their objections to the article's content, which is allowed. You called their statements "delusions" and "dogmatic arrogance", which is crossing a line. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
---> Re: Rosguill
What about these expressions that Adamant1 dropped in the statement?:
- "the article smells like a non-neutral puff piece"
- "the Xinhua (via syndicate)"
- "and is just as puffy"
Such informal and non-academic word choices shall be considered almost slangs, which could guarantee scarce objectivity in the field of encyclopedic negotiations.
Adamant1 has called my expressions in the article using those phrases above, which is allowed according to your own perspective.
However, the way I called his expressions "delusions" and "dogmatic arrogance" is excessive in the same criteria of yours?
Specify the absolute DIFFERENCES between the linguistic behaviors of mine and Adamant1's, with referring to the official objective guidelines of Wikipedia, as far as you would impose me upon achieving the level of objectivity that you suggest.
Supremarguax (
talk) 7:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Puffery is a commonly used term on Wikipedia, see WP:PUFF, and there's nothing insulting about saying that the Xinhua piece is syndicated so I'm not really sure what you think is the matter there. Ironically, you failed to identify some actual (mild) insults in Adamant1's response. But your needling them about their grammar is a particularly egregious response, and I had already warned you beforehand. signed, Rosguill talk 16:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
---> Re: Rosguill
As you see in the conversations above, Adamant1 has never called the reference sites completely determined
PUFF but just "smelling like" that without close verifications.
All the same manners are seen everywhere in Adamant1's paragraphs as assuming with no proof that I am a COI editor or paid author who created the article, branding the external sources useless with no deep research, misleading as if a website operated by a company which is owned by another company had no neutrality, claiming the irrelevance of a source to the article which actually contains relevant information, disregarding multiple sources without specifying references to what are the truly certified reliable forms of sources on Wikipedia, etc.
In addition, I was told in the field of Italian Wikipedia that my article could not stay there unless I wrote it in the grammatically perfect Italian language in which they ordinarily speak.
Why could Adamant1's statement stay in the field of English Wikipedia nevertheless any completely unmanned neutral machines that examine grammatical and semantic errors shall regard the statement as partially incomprehensible?
The most obviously I have used no words in the discussions that contain aggression, offence, insult or egrigiousness according to the official defonitions of the world's most credible English dictionaries like the Cambridge's and the Oxford's.
What on Earth is your "objective source" to judge that my phrases clearly "attacked" any user on Wikipedia?
The usage of those locally used slangs here like
PUFF have ever had no chance to be teached in any school education system around the world, and it is unrealistic to be taken for granted that every Wikipedia user is more familiar to them than to the correct grammars of formal English contexts.
Supremarguax (
talk)
16:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)