Talk:Harmonic (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dear Michael Bednarek

1. Please explain why you can delete the most important lead which explains from its original meanings. The important lead that you deleted unreasonably is below:
   "Harmonic is originally an adjective relating to the combination of musical notes to create chords, later, becomes a noun meaning a soft high note played on a stringed instrument by not pressing the string all the way down".
2. Please explain why you can leave the unsourced OR sentence while unfairly accusing me of "unsourced OR". The OR lead you have left is below:
   "usually refers to the frequency components of a time-varying signa".
3. Please explain why you can express(lie) "restore", though in fact you "ruin"ed the lead apparently.
4. Please explain why you didn't edit positively at all when you are not satisfied with others' edits.
5. Please explain why you cannot think your unreasonable deletings are obviously useless and harmful vandalism against other editors and readers.

• If you can explain these five questions at once(within 72 hours at the latest), you have proved yourself to be the cruel personal attacker to be banned forever, unfortunately. -- NeedsLove (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC), (moved Spinningspark's sentences)10:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Spinningspark

Spinningspark said in the section "#Dear Michael Bednarek": ( <-- -- NeedsLove (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC) )

Disambiguation pages do not have lesds, they are not articles. I previously explained to you on your talk page what these pages are for. Please stop reinserting the material. MOS:DAB says the page, "...should begin a sentence fragment ending with a colon, introducing a bulleted list:" and "...pages should contain only disambiguation content..." Your material does not comply with this and belongs elsewhere. SpinningSpark 23:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

1. The section "#Dear Michael Bednarek" is only for User:Michael Bednarek. Please explain why you could ignore the fact that User:Michael Bednarek couldn't have answered at all and, moreover, revert as if you were User:Michael Bednarek.
2. Please explain why you cannot wait and see for a while(only 72 hours, as mentioned above).
3. Please explain why you interfered in the section for "#Dear Michael Bednarek".
4. Apparently your vandalism reverts have no reasonable reason as well as Bednarek's, because you and Bednarek have left the 1)lead 2)unsourced, that looks like evil vandalism and cruel personal attack with bald-faced lies. Please explain why you could ignore your obvious contradictions(lies).
5. Please explain why you can think that disambiguation pages without necessary important lead can be helpful as an encyclopedia(WP:5P).
6. Please explain why you can think that disambiguation pages without necessary important lead can be written from a neutral point of view(WP:5P) and why you have tried to force us stop kind and quick-witted human beings with common sense. (It seemed that Michael Bednarek and Spinningspark are cruel Nazis, or facists, unfortunately.)
7. The third pillar of WP:5P says, "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute". This means that Wikipedias are not even admins' private websites and that to revert other editors' distributions unreasonably is not helpful and not preferable at all. Please explain why you can have been doing the contrary.
8. The forth pillar of WP:5P says, "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner". Please explain why you can have been doing the opposite.
9. The fifth pillar of WP:5P says, "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Please explain why you can have been saying and doing the contrary.
10. Please explain why you can ignore all of WP:5P?
11. Please explain why you can delete the most important lead which explains from its original meanings. The important lead that you deleted unreasonably is below:
    "Harmonic is originally an adjective relating to the combination of musical notes to create chords, later, becomes a noun meaning a soft high note played on a stringed instrument by not pressing the string all the way down".
12. Please explain why you can leave the unsourced OR sentence while unfairly accusing me of "unsourced OR". The OR lead you have left is below:
    "usually refers to the frequency components of a time-varying signa".
13. Please explain why you can express(lie) "restore", though in fact you "ruin"ed the lead apparently.
14. Please explain why you didn't edit positively at all when you are not satisfied with others' edits.
15. Please explain why you cannot think your unreasonable deletings are obviously useless and harmful vandalism against other editors and readers.

• If you can explain these fifteen questions at once(within 72 hours at the latest), you have proved yourself to be the cruel personal attacker to be banned forever, unfortunately.

-- NeedsLove (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Just plain Bill

1. Please explain why you could ignore the fact that User:Michael Bednarek couldn't have answered at all and, moreover, revert as if you were User:Michael Bednarek and User:Spinningspark.
2. Please explain why you cannot wait and see for a while(only 72 hours, as mentioned above).
3. Apparently your vandalism reverts have no reasonable reason as well as Bednarek's and Spinningspark's, because you, Spinningspark, and Bednarek have left the 1)lead 2)unsourced, that looks like evil vandalism and cruel personal attack with bald-faced lies. Please explain why you could ignore your obvious contradictions(lies).
4. Please explain why you can think that disambiguation pages without necessary important lead can be helpful as an encyclopedia(WP:5P).
5. Please explain why you can think that disambiguation pages without necessary important lead can be written from a neutral point of view(WP:5P) and why you have tried to force us stop kind and quick-witted human beings with common sense. (It seemed that Michael Bednarek, Spinningspark, and Just plain Bill are cruel Nazis, or facists, unfortunately.)
6. The third pillar of WP:5P says, "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute". This means that Wikipedias are not even admins' private websites and that to revert other editors' distributions unreasonably is not helpful and not preferable at all. Please explain why you can have been doing the contrary.
7. The forth pillar of WP:5P says, "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner". Please explain why you can have been doing the opposite.
8. The fifth pillar of WP:5P says, "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". Please explain why you can have been saying and doing the contrary.
9. Please explain why you can ignore all of WP:5P?
10. Please explain why you can delete the most important lead which explains from its original meanings. The important lead that you deleted unreasonably is below:
    "Harmonic is originally an adjective relating to the combination of musical notes to create chords, later, becomes a noun meaning a soft high note played on a stringed instrument by not pressing the string all the way down".
11. Please explain why you can leave the unsourced OR sentence while unfairly accusing me of "unsourced OR". The OR lead you have left is below:
    "usually refers to the frequency components of a time-varying signa".
12. Please explain why you can express(lie) "restore", though in fact you "ruin"ed the lead apparently.
13. Please explain why you didn't edit positively at all when you are not satisfied with others' edits.
14. Please explain why you cannot think your unreasonable deletings are obviously useless and harmful vandalism against other editors and readers.
15. Please explain why you cannot be responsible at all for the tag"For other uses, see Harmonic (disambiguation)" in the article page "Harmonic".

• If you can explain these fifteen questions at once(within 72 hours at the latest), you have proved yourself to be the cruel personal attacker to be banned forever, unfortunately.

-- NeedsLove (talk) 11:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a bad case of I didn't hear that going on here. To reiterate, disambiguation pages are not articles, they do not have leads, they do not contain encyclopaedic content, and, because of that, they do not need referencing. Please read the MOS:DAB guideline, as you have been asked, and that should explain everything.

Also, please stop creating new sections for the same discussion. You cannot specify who can and cannot take part in a discussion. Wikipedia is a community and anyone can join in on any discussion. SpinningSpark 13:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, SpinningSpark.

@NeedsLove: I have not seen you being subject to personal attack here. You, on the other hand, have personally attacked several other editors by calling them Nazis or facists[sic]. This will stop. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)