User talk:Cebr1979: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:36, 20 July 2015 view sourceSMcCandlish (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors201,792 edits →Block notice: Third party observation/advice← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:18, 20 July 2015 view source Cebr1979 (talk \| contribs)10,843 edits I don't "nuke everything off my talk page," I keep it clean (which is fine). Removing something off someone's talk page indicates they've read it. Except in this case. I have no interest in your lengthy whatever.Next edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:

	{{unblock reviewed \| 1=So... I have been blocked by <span class="template-ping">@]:</span> for the reasons he or she listed above. That's absolutely bogus. In discussion with <span class="template-ping">@]:</span>, I have had to deal with posts from her such as: * * * * * However, have warnings or blocks ever been issued to that user by Euryalus? Nope. Just me. Two warnings and now a block when I've only ever responded to Flyer... and in less of an uncivil context than she's given to me). To be fair (which Euryalus' actions have clearly shown he or she is incapable of being), I should be unblocked and a warning should be issued to Flyer 22 (and this isn't even touching upon the talk page/edit history stalking Flyer has admitted to - my goodness!).] (]) 03:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC) \| decline = ] for your own misconduct rarely works in an unblock request. That said, my sense is you delight in your own words. Your glib barbs are self-indulgent, counter-productive, and don't lend themselves to working on this project. Your need to learn to control your tongue. As an aside, the diff above that you call "especially bad" is tame in comparison to your remarks. ] (]) 04:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)}}		{{unblock reviewed \| 1=So... I have been blocked by <span class="template-ping">@]:</span> for the reasons he or she listed above. That's absolutely bogus. In discussion with <span class="template-ping">@]:</span>, I have had to deal with posts from her such as: * * * * * However, have warnings or blocks ever been issued to that user by Euryalus? Nope. Just me. Two warnings and now a block when I've only ever responded to Flyer... and in less of an uncivil context than she's given to me). To be fair (which Euryalus' actions have clearly shown he or she is incapable of being), I should be unblocked and a warning should be issued to Flyer 22 (and this isn't even touching upon the talk page/edit history stalking Flyer has admitted to - my goodness!).] (]) 03:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC) \| decline = ] for your own misconduct rarely works in an unblock request. That said, my sense is you delight in your own words. Your glib barbs are self-indulgent, counter-productive, and don't lend themselves to working on this project. Your need to learn to control your tongue. As an aside, the diff above that you call "especially bad" is tame in comparison to your remarks. ] (]) 04:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)}}
	:Well, thanks anyways. See ya in two days!] (]) 05:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)		::Well, thanks anyways. See ya in two days!] (]) 05:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
	::The fact that you nuke everything off your talk page has the effect of indicating that you disregard the concerns of others, and are trying to hide them, which doesn't help your cause. While it's technically permissible to do this, it's a bad idea for multiple reasons. Virtually no one is going to take your side, for example, if you make it a huge pain in the ass for them to do so. I (and probably I alone, out of all of WP) actually went to the trouble to dig up the blocking admin's prior warnings from your page history, and would have actually objected that the "personal attacks" flagged by the admin do not in fact constitute ]. They're kind of annoying posts by you, but they're not attacks. The underlying basis for the block was therefore questionable at least in part.<p>But not entirely; the block was issued for ] behavior, not ] violations, and I think that applies. Your behavior at ] was pretty atrocious (even if I would rather have seen a ] discussion, not unilateral admin action). I tried to warn you, but oh well. Given what else I see in your talk page's history, I doubt you would have listened. I'll try anyway.</p><p>Look, we all (or most of us) like to prevail, not fail, in the arguments we present in debates here, but Misplaced Pages is not about ]. Your continual pursuit of belittling other editors, snide and sarcastic commentary, and trying to make others look or feel stupid, is not an encyclopedic aim, but just a ] failure. If you can demonstrate that {{em\|an argument}} is faulty, they do so. (And "demonstrate" means "prove it with reliable sources", not just rant about it repetitively in a "]" manner; stating your position again and again doesn't make it magically correct). There's a big difference between disproving someone's claim, and questioning the intelligence or reasoning ability of another editor, which you do frequently through insinuations and dismissals, if not actual attacks.</p><p>Furthermore, you probably need to stay away from grammar and style debates. You're strongly exhibiting the ], and are too frequently flat out wrong, all the while insisting how obviously superior your knowledge of the topic is, and it's not fooling anyone with more than a high-school education. You're not mistaken in these matters by my subjective opinion or that of anyone else, but by simple reference to multiple grammar and style guides. Your comma usage at that article was obviously substandard, in all dialects. Worse yet, when the incorrectness of your position is demonstrated to you on matters like this, with cited sources, you ignore it with a ], like comments about "American style" that clearly do not actually apply. This is a ] pattern, another form of disruptive tendentiousness. If it continues, it will get you blocked again. (I'm not saying that as an admin – I'd rather eat my own feet than be an admin here – it's just a prediction based on 9-or-so years experience here.) Un-disclaimer: As far as I know, I have no prior interaction with you, so I have no bone to pick. You're just getting your facts wrong, and being ] about it to other editors. Take it down several notches, and people will probably just forget about it. Think of yourself as being at a coding party; are you going to help reach the milestone, or be the guy who gets thrown out for criticizing everyone else's if-then structures and indentation style, instead of actually writing code? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 06:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:18, 20 July 2015

A brownie for you!

In an attempt to bury the hatchet, and hopefully move forward with positive and cohesion in our editing! Plus... brownies are yummy! livelikemusic 01:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I can't say as I've mastered the art of sending brownies quite yet so you'll have to forgive for not sending one back. Cebr1979 (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

To send WikiLove to a user, click the red (or pink.. depending on your screen tinting) heart in the editing section where you have "Read", "Edit", etc. livelikemusic 02:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Euryalus (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Per the follows from WP:BATTLEGROUND, "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion." You may well be right on commas, but you should advance your case without the insults. Repeated warnings not having had any effect, a short block has been imposed in order to prevent the continued disruption of the editing environment on the Cougar (slang) talk page and elsewhere. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cebr1979 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So... I have been blocked by @Euryalus: for the reasons he or she listed above. That's absolutely bogus. In discussion with @Flyer22:, I have had to deal with posts from her such as: *1 *2 *3 *4 (this one is especially bad) *5 However, have warnings or blocks ever been issued to that user by Euryalus? Nope. Just me. Two warnings and now a block when I've only ever responded to Flyer... and in less of an uncivil context than she's given to me). To be fair (which Euryalus' actions have clearly shown he or she is incapable of being), I should be unblocked and a warning should be issued to Flyer 22 (and this isn't even touching upon the talk page/edit history stalking Flyer has admitted to - my goodness!).Cebr1979 (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Blaming others for your own misconduct rarely works in an unblock request. That said, my sense is you delight in your own words. Your glib barbs are self-indulgent, counter-productive, and don't lend themselves to working on this project. Your need to learn to control your tongue. As an aside, the diff above that you call "especially bad" is tame in comparison to your remarks. Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, thanks anyways. See ya in two days!Cebr1979 (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:36, 20 July 2015 view sourceSMcCandlish (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors201,792 edits →Block notice: Third party observation/advice← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:18, 20 July 2015 view source Cebr1979 (talk \| contribs)10,843 edits I don't "nuke everything off my talk page," I keep it clean (which is fine). Removing something off someone's talk page indicates they've read it. Except in this case. I have no interest in your lengthy whatever.Next edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:

	{{unblock reviewed \| 1=So... I have been blocked by <span class="template-ping">@]:</span> for the reasons he or she listed above. That's absolutely bogus. In discussion with <span class="template-ping">@]:</span>, I have had to deal with posts from her such as: * * * * * However, have warnings or blocks ever been issued to that user by Euryalus? Nope. Just me. Two warnings and now a block when I've only ever responded to Flyer... and in less of an uncivil context than she's given to me). To be fair (which Euryalus' actions have clearly shown he or she is incapable of being), I should be unblocked and a warning should be issued to Flyer 22 (and this isn't even touching upon the talk page/edit history stalking Flyer has admitted to - my goodness!).] (]) 03:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC) \| decline = ] for your own misconduct rarely works in an unblock request. That said, my sense is you delight in your own words. Your glib barbs are self-indulgent, counter-productive, and don't lend themselves to working on this project. Your need to learn to control your tongue. As an aside, the diff above that you call "especially bad" is tame in comparison to your remarks. ] (]) 04:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)}}		{{unblock reviewed \| 1=So... I have been blocked by <span class="template-ping">@]:</span> for the reasons he or she listed above. That's absolutely bogus. In discussion with <span class="template-ping">@]:</span>, I have had to deal with posts from her such as: * * * * * However, have warnings or blocks ever been issued to that user by Euryalus? Nope. Just me. Two warnings and now a block when I've only ever responded to Flyer... and in less of an uncivil context than she's given to me). To be fair (which Euryalus' actions have clearly shown he or she is incapable of being), I should be unblocked and a warning should be issued to Flyer 22 (and this isn't even touching upon the talk page/edit history stalking Flyer has admitted to - my goodness!).] (]) 03:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC) \| decline = ] for your own misconduct rarely works in an unblock request. That said, my sense is you delight in your own words. Your glib barbs are self-indulgent, counter-productive, and don't lend themselves to working on this project. Your need to learn to control your tongue. As an aside, the diff above that you call "especially bad" is tame in comparison to your remarks. ] (]) 04:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)}}
	:Well, thanks anyways. See ya in two days!] (]) 05:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)		::Well, thanks anyways. See ya in two days!] (]) 05:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
	::The fact that you nuke everything off your talk page has the effect of indicating that you disregard the concerns of others, and are trying to hide them, which doesn't help your cause. While it's technically permissible to do this, it's a bad idea for multiple reasons. Virtually no one is going to take your side, for example, if you make it a huge pain in the ass for them to do so. I (and probably I alone, out of all of WP) actually went to the trouble to dig up the blocking admin's prior warnings from your page history, and would have actually objected that the "personal attacks" flagged by the admin do not in fact constitute ]. They're kind of annoying posts by you, but they're not attacks. The underlying basis for the block was therefore questionable at least in part.<p>But not entirely; the block was issued for ] behavior, not ] violations, and I think that applies. Your behavior at ] was pretty atrocious (even if I would rather have seen a ] discussion, not unilateral admin action). I tried to warn you, but oh well. Given what else I see in your talk page's history, I doubt you would have listened. I'll try anyway.</p><p>Look, we all (or most of us) like to prevail, not fail, in the arguments we present in debates here, but Misplaced Pages is not about ]. Your continual pursuit of belittling other editors, snide and sarcastic commentary, and trying to make others look or feel stupid, is not an encyclopedic aim, but just a ] failure. If you can demonstrate that {{em\|an argument}} is faulty, they do so. (And "demonstrate" means "prove it with reliable sources", not just rant about it repetitively in a "]" manner; stating your position again and again doesn't make it magically correct). There's a big difference between disproving someone's claim, and questioning the intelligence or reasoning ability of another editor, which you do frequently through insinuations and dismissals, if not actual attacks.</p><p>Furthermore, you probably need to stay away from grammar and style debates. You're strongly exhibiting the ], and are too frequently flat out wrong, all the while insisting how obviously superior your knowledge of the topic is, and it's not fooling anyone with more than a high-school education. You're not mistaken in these matters by my subjective opinion or that of anyone else, but by simple reference to multiple grammar and style guides. Your comma usage at that article was obviously substandard, in all dialects. Worse yet, when the incorrectness of your position is demonstrated to you on matters like this, with cited sources, you ignore it with a ], like comments about "American style" that clearly do not actually apply. This is a ] pattern, another form of disruptive tendentiousness. If it continues, it will get you blocked again. (I'm not saying that as an admin – I'd rather eat my own feet than be an admin here – it's just a prediction based on 9-or-so years experience here.) Un-disclaimer: As far as I know, I have no prior interaction with you, so I have no bone to pick. You're just getting your facts wrong, and being ] about it to other editors. Take it down several notches, and people will probably just forget about it. Think of yourself as being at a coding party; are you going to help reach the milestone, or be the guy who gets thrown out for criticizing everyone else's if-then structures and indentation style, instead of actually writing code? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 06:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)