User talk:Gwigley

January 2019

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Doctor Who (series 11), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Ted Edwards 15:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Not sure you read that page thoroughly. It clearly states that the following is prohibited:

“Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on the wiki.“

In other words, criticising conduct IS permissible if supported by evidence. Which I obviously did. So thank you for the ‘warning’ but given that it is plainly flawed, I shall treat it with the consideration it deserves.

So you're saying there aren't any personal attacks whatsoever from you on Talk:Doctor Who (series 11), and calling someone not very bright, saying are you feeling ok?, and refering to other editors as hypocrites aren't classified as personal attacks? Ted Edwards 17:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I have said is objectively correct and supported by evidence: namely, the empirical reality of what people have said (or not said). If you can’t handle that, that’s not my problem.

Hello, I'm Alex 21. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Doctor Who (series 11) that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Note the part that states that the content has been removed. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Nice try!

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You really didn't think that through did you. Because if I am 'edit-warring' then so are you...

I certainly did. Remind me, who's the editor forcing the content to remain, the personal attacks that have been identified as such by multiple editors, not just myself? You really didn't think that through did you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. So making the same identical edit three times isn't 'edit-warring' when you do it, but it is when I do it? All this over the factually correct assertion that you are a hypocrite! Oh the irony...

WP:3RRNO #4. You're welcome. And if you really want to edit here, I recommend learning the very basics, like knowing how to sign your posts. It's truly so simple. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone ever read the stuff they quote at me? I direct your attention to, "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." Pointing out your own objective failures and hypocrisy in your own editing conduct should assist you in not making similar mistakes in the future. You don't like that. Tough.

"Reverting obvious vandalism [...] such as page blanking and adding offensive language." Clearly you're WP:NOTHERE. And still can't do the most basic editor thing of pressing one button four times. Yeesh, kiddo. And "anyone"? Makes you wonder how many times you've needed to be warned by how many editors. Makes you wonder who the issue lies with... -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Throw policy after policy at me all you want. None of that changes the basic fact. You're a hypocrite. I noted it. You're throwing your toys out of the pram because you can't refute it and it's driving you mad. Which is incredibly sad, but not my problem.

Oh and I think I see what you mean about 'signing posts' and 'typing four characters.' How I was meant to know or be aware of this I'm not quite sure. I'll bear it in mind elsewhere. But since this is my page, I don't think I'll take orders from you here.

Mm, except nobody owns their page. This isn't your property, nor is mine my property. And look, another editor reverting you. It's not me, buddy. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, multiple people are wrong. What's your point, hypocrite?

Glad you've learned from you block that personal attacks, such as calling editors hypocrites, are not appropriate. And to repeat what Alex has said multiple times, sign your posts. And per WP:OWN#User pages, you don't own this talk page. --Ted Edwards 18:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like being called a hypocrite when you are one, then you can get stuffed. If you don't like me refusing to follow your orders on my own page, you can also get stuffed.

@TedEdwards: It's all good; I don't care what they do here, especially since they don't own this page. It's them blocked, not me, and if they continue once they can edit again, then their block will just be extended. No biggie. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Railfan23 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage access revoked due to continuing personal attacks. If this happens after the block expires, a longer or indefinite block will be applied. Acroterion (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstatement of personal attacks

Don;'t do that again. Acroterion (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Truth hurts doesn't it.