Personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia

I'm allowed to remove things from my talk page. If you re-add them then i'll just re-delete them because I would get bollocked for doing the same thing on your talk page. You don't own this page, nor does any stylistic reply relating to wikipedia guidelines on editing apply. This page is all purely based upon matter that isn't affiliated with Articles, nor is it academically referenced.

If you wish to preen this article, you're wasting percious time that could be used for actually contributing something which could perhaps be meaningful.

Disruption

Spum, your personal attacks against Viriditas [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] are not acceptable. I don't know the details of the dispute, except that it's about Healthy diet, which is an article that badly needed a clean up, particularly if you look at the version before Viriditas started his copy edit. [7] I understand that if this is an article you care about, it can be very frustrating when others start adding or deleting material, but it's in the nature of a wiki that this will happen, and Viriditas is a very good, cooperative editor, so try to form a working relationship with him. If the attacks continue, you may find that admin action will be taken, which is best avoided. In the meantime, take a look at WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:NOT. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning, Spum. Based on what I've seen, you're adding spelling and grammatical errors, inappropriate caps, odd sentence structure, and your own POV into the article, and Viriditas is trying to sort it out. If you make one more personal attack, use another abusive edit summary, or cause any other form of disruption, you'll be temporarily blocked from editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pleased to hear you're going to let bygones be bygones. Thank you. Regarding the issue of capitalization: "Governmental Schemes" is not correct. First, it should be "Government": schemes run by a government, capitalized because it's the first word in the header. The second word need not be capitalized because it's not a proper noun. And I would say "programs," or "campaigns". Campaigns is probably the most accurate, so I'm not sure why you don't want to use it, and it's not clear what is meant by "scheme." The impression I get from your edits is that you're copying this material from somewhere, perhaps government pamphlets. That kind of language isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, because it's basically propaganda, designed to persuade people rather than to present factual material in a neutral way. We have to write in a tighter, neutral, encyclopedic tone. Viriditas is an excellent, experienced editor, so if you watch how he rephrases things, it'll give you a good idea of how to do it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spum, this is starting to get silly, so please let it go. You edited errors into the article. This is no big deal; everyone does it from time to time. Viriditas cleaned them up. End of story. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use soft paper

re your comment on slims page.--71.28.253.197 10:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply

You may need it with that one. Good luck.--71.28.253.197 11:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

Please cease the personal attacks. I did not appreciate being called some kitten-thing and you've been warned on this by SlimVirgin and by MarkGallagher. Any more personal attacks are going to result in a short ban. Thank you. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All you had to do was look at the history of your own talk page to see my name. You also could've look at Viriditas page to see my name. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I have no problem with you criticizing people, but when you don't bother to find their correct name, it makes it look like a personal attack even if it isn't.

And the reason why people keep quoting policy at you is that you don't seem to grasp it. And you keep defending yourself as if we are in the wrong and you are in the right. It doesn't exactly make you alot of friends. You know, the thing is, these are not viscious new users that are quoting policy to you. Viriditas has been around for over a year...SlimVirgin is an admin. I'm an admin. I have over 13,000 edits on this project. I know what I'm talking about. I'm not in the habit of "picking on people" or whatever you want to call it. The thing is, if you have trouble taking criticism and other editors editing your work, then you need to find a way to get used to it or else you shouldn't be here. I mean I've barely said 2 words to you and suddenly I've joined some group of people who are being overzealous in trying to upset your research. Viriditas was making edits for less than a day and you were already making comments in edit summaries like "fuck viriditas". Viriditas made a comment that he thought the page should be cleaned up. You didn't start a civil discussion with him like you should have. Instead, you jumped right down his throat. What you are supposed to do is calmly discuss it with him.

The thing is. Go back to healthy diet. You obviously have ideas that are different than Viriditas. So discuss the problem with him. Calmly...rationally...instead of acting like he's picking on you because he disagrees with you. Civility. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, C'est La vie. Spum 14:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, it would not be an indefinite ban. We do not indefinitely ban people on here unless they have been much more egregious than you have been. It would be for a short time, i.e. 1 hour, 3 hours...whatever. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I think he's picking on me. There you go putting words in my mouth again. I'm not actually here to try and get a load of cooky internet friends, i'm trying to actually make it academically sound so hopefully others will be encouraged to read the article and use it within their essays.

It's useless trying to actually try and help alongside Virix8 because he thinks he's some form of admin, and again, like you have recently, tried to pin things on me that I haven't said. First was the fact you suggested i wanted to own the article - i explained why that was untrue. Secondly, you were regarding me as a troll, but yet you must see what point i have to put across with regards to V.x1 and why it slightly annoyed me he "jumped in" with only 3 words explanation. I've read the rules, and i've continually been told to do so, but yet, the page on Personal Attacks is laid out worse than Healthy diet, with about 10 headers on it, and yet i'm made out to be some form of simpleton for dividing content out like it says within the rules, which seem to change from person to person, however they interpret them.

You have been blocked

I am blocking you for 24 hours. #1 you called Viriditas both Virix8 and V.x1. Name calling is a personal attack no matter how you cut it. Also, you still don't seem to quite get the point. It is *ok for people to jump in and start editing a page*. It is not against policy. The thing is...what you should have done was...either discuss it with him nicely as he was making the edits (putting a note on his user page would've been enough) or just revert his changes once he's done and tell him you want to discuss his changes. Period. I am blocking you in the hope that you cool off a bit and come back a bit calmer. You've been warned and warned and warned and yet you just keep doing stuff that you know we'll interpret as a personal attack. You just keep violating it. In the end, the fact that the policy is sparse is kind of besides the point. If name calling is not a personal attack, I don't know what it is. See you in 24 hours. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened the block to 3 hours total since I said first blockings were for 1 or 3 hours. I duly apologize. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do

I can't exactly tell how I got to this page but it's been about 10 moves ago from one of the people I remember. I guess it's not too funny to you but I have never seen so much truth in wikipedia and laughed so hard. I left several months ago determined to never return and if I wasn't in this backwater of the world right I never would have come back. Thanks for the laugh and good day (oh I corrected above editors typo).--Che Perez 21:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does your comment "People on the wikipedia are extremely touchy and sensitive" refer to yourself? Or is that the others? After reading healthy diet I'm just not sure. David D. (Talk) 03:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Honestly, if we people didn't point out to others when policies where being broken, what would be the point of having policies? And we're not overly sensitive. It's just that personal attacks are NOT allowed. You need to learn to discuss without telling people stuff like "fuck Viriditas". You can do it. Most others on here do. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Including "Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please refrain from being critical and negative in headings on talk pages. Keep in mind that you may think you are being critical about details of the article, but those details were written by individual editors, and thus you are criticizing their edits and them." --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strange

Please... I accused you of nothing. Clearly, you are far too possessive of Healthy diet, and where's your sense of humour? Dyslexic agnostic 10:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained this. Spum 13:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you engage in any more personal attacks

You will blocked indefinitely. Stop. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of latest personal attack

Spum, I've just removed your latest personal attack against Viriditas. The next step, obviously, is to warn you that you'll be blocked if you persist, but I see that (not surprisingly) others have already warned you. So this is just to let you know that on your next violation, if SlimVirgin or Woohookitty doesn't block you, I will. Regards, AnnH ^(talk) 12:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem

Is that you got off of the wrong foot with Viriditas. You attacked him instead of discussing changes with him. No, it wasn't really good for Viriditas to make changes like he did without asking first, but your reaction was far worse. I'd rather (and I think most people on here) have a user do what Viritidas did than what you did. "Fuck Viriditas" and making fun of his name and such just wasn't the right way to go. No, not every edit you make is listed as a personal attack. But edits like the comment about having kids with him or whatever that was definitely counts as a personal attack. Argue the issue, not the person. That's a very good rule of thumb around here. As soon as you start arguing the person than you get into hot water. You have every right to talk to Viriditas about the healthy diet article. In fact, I encourage you too. Hash out your differences. But please try not to devolve into name calling or making fun of him or whatever. On Wikipedia, it's not what you say in terms of content...it's how you say that it that will get you into trouble every time. I've been here a year. I know. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you grant me the same liberty of not embellishing things to my record, then i'll be glad to. Again, on the condition Viriditas posts useful info, and not just literal stuff that i can get fro mthe obviously posted cleanup.

Spum, once again, you misunderstand. There is no "as long as," or "on condition [that]". You must edit in accordance with our content policies and behave in accordance with our behavior policies, and that's that. I'm sorry to speak harshly but this has gone on long enough, and you are now very much on your last warning from more than one admin. If you want to edit, you must produce material that is written properly (we don't require perfection, but the writing mustn't be full of grammatical and spelling errors), preferably with sources, and written in a neutral way (which means not advocating what any government has said). You might want to read the following policies: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Civility. You've said elsewhere that the policy pages don't help you to find what you're looking for, so by all means ask me if you're confused, but on the other hand, please don't create areas of confusion just so you can continue this conflict. Either start editing within the policies, or understand that your time here may be about to end. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, i'm sorry but are you suggesting i have no concept of Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not ? Sorry, but after adding 14 refereces to one article, and other article i have started have NEVER started without references; seems to be kind of unfounded. I'm well aware of policy, i just think it is somewhat lacking if Viriditas is allowed to post extremely brief summaries of what are supposed to be large operations, so to speak. Spum 14:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't understand this. "As long as you grant me the same liberty of not embellishing things to my record, then i'll be glad to.". If you are referring to Viriditas, I don't remember him embellishing anything to his record. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:inuse

Hey, Spum. You may be interested in reading Template talk:Inuse. "Please remember to remove the Inuse note as soon as you're finished editing." --Viriditas 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your question on categories

Nutrition shows up as a category because the category listed (Dietetics) is a subcategory of Category:Nutrition. If you look at the Nutrition category, its subcategories are diets, Obesity, etc. If you list any of the subcategories, nutrition will show up as well. Hope that makes sense. I find it kind of annoying, but it's in the code...can't get rid of it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPN

Hi, Spum. I just wanted to compliment you on Template:WPN. The watermelon image looks really good (and quite tasty). --Viriditas 06:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've done some good work here, and I just wanted to let you know that it's appreciated. --Viriditas 12:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - You're alright ;-) Spum 12:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]