User talk:Parrot of Doom
Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer. Three, anyone coming here with a genuine request for help will of course be afforded all the help I can give. Four, never again will I venture onto ANI or any similar admin-related pages, either to resolve an issue, or to respond to somebody else's issue; I'm here to write articles, nothing else. Five, I apologise to those who've supported me in the past, but good-faith content editors can only put up with so much nonsense before they begin to question what good, if any, they're doing here. One day, I'm sure, all that's left here will be a clique of admins and a claque of their sycophants; the rest of the world will have moved on, hopefully to projects where people's contributions are valued, and not decried. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
October 2013
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Guy Fawkes Night. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- You have been here long enough to recognize vandalism, which this was not, and you should know that we don't template our regular content creators. Those spaces that you object to are only visible on the edit screen. I suggest you remove the template and engage in an amiable discussion on any other issues on the article's talk page. Graham Colm (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Read the full newsletter
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Guy Fawkes Night shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. StAnselm (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Go fuck yourself. Parrot of Doom 12:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I struck through the two comments because they are a blatant violation of WP: NPA, not CIV. I understand that if someone is being a dick, you should call them out for it. Calling someone an "idiot" or a "cunt" clearly fall in line as a personal attack, however. Things like that typically do nothing more than stir the shit, so they should be struck through, not to remove the comment entirely, but to simply nullify the offensiveness of it. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)