User talk:Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective

Bill Oddie

Your edits to Bill Oddie were unacceptable and have been reverted. Please read the relevant policies, especially WP:OR, WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY before editing further. Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liminality talk page

Your edits to Liminality talk page [here] are not acceptable and have been deleted. Please read the relevant policies, especially WP:OR, WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY before editing further. Thank you. —F^red ¹1⁴ 08:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Regarding your comments on Talk:Spontaneous Generation: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. When commenting on talk pages, please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your posts. Novangelis (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Spontaneous generation has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Article. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Novangelis (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Spontaneous generation. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. haz (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing is being discussed at the 3RR noticeboard

See this thread. You are welcome to join that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Magnetic. You have called some other editors 'liars' in this report on an administrative noticeboard. You should be aware that we take this very seriously. I invite you to strike out your 'liar' remarks. If you don't do so, you may be blocked!

See WP:No personal attacks. If you can't control yourself, you may not be a good candidate for editing Wikipedia, which depends upon friendly and respectful collaboration among editors. You probably would not want to work with people who you consider liars, would you? EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, Novangelis made several unfounded personal attacks on me which I proved were lies, what's your problem with me doing that? What if someone called you a child molester, wouldn't you be justified in calling them a liar if you could prove they were lying? Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective

If you read WP:No personal attacks, you will understand that you can't make such statements. Withdraw them now, and we will discuss later how you could have stated your position differently. You are allowed to say "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y". A person is not allowed to say 'You are a liar!' EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that article and it says (as I thought it might):

"Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack"

Which covers what I said: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Spontaneous_generation#Areas_for_growth "1)You were lying. Not a personal attack, just a constructive criticism.

2)Criticism not necessarily = personal attack."

Will I copy and paste what was said here to that thread so the conversation can continue as it was meant to? Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Disruptive editing. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Why did you just decide to block me when I was trying to discuss the matter civilly? You have been very aggressive throughout, the Wikipedia guidelines say the comments I made did not violate the rule of assuming Good faith, nor the rule of No Personal attacks, ands your blocking me violates the principle of the personal attack rule, so what is going on here ed?}}

Your block expired five hours ago. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, I'm still upset he did this, such abuse of power should not go unpunished.

Magneticstockbrokingpetdetective

Since I felt that we were getting somewhere without the intervention of a mod and I had got things more or less under control, I feel the ban was unnecesary whether it was correct or not.

I can't be bothered to check your words, but it is true that there is a subtle but essential difference between saying. "This statement is untrue", which descibes an editors actions and "You are a liar", which describes an editor personally. Leave it to me and I will continue to consider Aristotle's place in the story. Thanks for your input. If you have any other ideas you can leave them with me on my page if you prefer to avoid certain people. Thank you. IceDragon64 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]