User talk:Carson101: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Warning: typo |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
*Carson101 this is a formal warning that your behaviour with regard to [[User:GoodDay]] has become unacceptable. Since mid-October 2011 your edits to wikipedia have been solely involved policing GoodDay's activities. This is not appropriate and at this point constitutes [[WP:HARASS|harassment]]. There is a difference between seeking to ''resolve'' a dispute and seeking to escalate it unnecessarily - your recent edits are crossing that line. <br>Step back and allow the mentors to do their job. Wikipedia is [[wp:battle|not a war-game]] - actions that result in the [[WP:DBF|frustration of dispute resolution processes]] that others are involved in, and to which you only have tangential, or no involvement, are unacceptable. Since you have neither edited any articles since mid-October[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Carson101&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1], nor actively participated in discussion of article improvements since mid-November[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Carson101&namespace=1&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1], I suggest you leave dispute resolution to those actually involved in editing & discussing these pages. <br>To make matters worse, today you have made an ''ad hominem'' attack on one of GoodDay's mentors ([[User:Danbarnesdavies]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADanbarnesdavies&action=historysubmit&diff=468289715&oldid=468243491]). Further edits in this vein (either targeted at GoodDay or his mentors) will result in an interaction ban (under the discretionary sanction imposable under the ArbCom ruling at [[WP:TROUBLES]], as these matters fall within its remit) in order to prevent further disruption of wikipedia. <br>You are welcome, and indeed encouraged, to [[wp:5|contribute positively to the project]], but this is formal notification, and fair warning, that your current manner of interaction on this project needs to change--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 23:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
*Carson101 this is a formal warning that your behaviour with regard to [[User:GoodDay]] has become unacceptable. Since mid-October 2011 your edits to wikipedia have been solely involved policing GoodDay's activities. This is not appropriate and at this point constitutes [[WP:HARASS|harassment]]. There is a difference between seeking to ''resolve'' a dispute and seeking to escalate it unnecessarily - your recent edits are crossing that line. <br>Step back and allow the mentors to do their job. Wikipedia is [[wp:battle|not a war-game]] - actions that result in the [[WP:DBF|frustration of dispute resolution processes]] that others are involved in, and to which you only have tangential, or no involvement, are unacceptable. Since you have neither edited any articles since mid-October[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Carson101&namespace=0&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1], nor actively participated in discussion of article improvements since mid-November[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagFilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Carson101&namespace=1&tagfilter=&year=&month=-1], I suggest you leave dispute resolution to those actually involved in editing & discussing these pages. <br>To make matters worse, today you have made an ''ad hominem'' attack on one of GoodDay's mentors ([[User:Danbarnesdavies]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADanbarnesdavies&action=historysubmit&diff=468289715&oldid=468243491]). Further edits in this vein (either targeted at GoodDay or his mentors) will result in an interaction ban (under the discretionary sanction imposable under the ArbCom ruling at [[WP:TROUBLES]], as these matters fall within its remit) in order to prevent further disruption of wikipedia. <br>You are welcome, and indeed encouraged, to [[wp:5|contribute positively to the project]], but this is formal notification, and fair warning, that your current manner of interaction on this project needs to change--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 23:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Let's get something clear Cailil. If I think one of GoodDay's mentors is not suitable I'll say it. I said on a previous occasion that I thought you were defending GoodDay despite being shown evidence that he was harming the project. I hope you have not been biding your time waiting to give me some sort of warning after my past comment. Oh, and when I get my own internet connection I'll contribute more substantially. Sitting in a library looking for a job doesn't give one much time. I contributed fine thanks very much when I did have an internet connection. Now, I would rather you didn't pay any more visits to my talk page in defence of GoodDay or his mentor. Thanks. [[User:Carson101|Carson101]] ([[User talk:Carson101#top|talk]]) 09:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 09:33, 30 December 2011
Warning
- Carson101 this is a formal warning that your behaviour with regard to User:GoodDay has become unacceptable. Since mid-October 2011 your edits to wikipedia have been solely involved policing GoodDay's activities. This is not appropriate and at this point constitutes harassment. There is a difference between seeking to resolve a dispute and seeking to escalate it unnecessarily - your recent edits are crossing that line.
Step back and allow the mentors to do their job. Wikipedia is not a war-game - actions that result in the frustration of dispute resolution processes that others are involved in, and to which you only have tangential, or no involvement, are unacceptable. Since you have neither edited any articles since mid-October[1], nor actively participated in discussion of article improvements since mid-November[2], I suggest you leave dispute resolution to those actually involved in editing & discussing these pages.
To make matters worse, today you have made an ad hominem attack on one of GoodDay's mentors (User:Danbarnesdavies[3]). Further edits in this vein (either targeted at GoodDay or his mentors) will result in an interaction ban (under the discretionary sanction imposable under the ArbCom ruling at WP:TROUBLES, as these matters fall within its remit) in order to prevent further disruption of wikipedia.
You are welcome, and indeed encouraged, to contribute positively to the project, but this is formal notification, and fair warning, that your current manner of interaction on this project needs to change--Cailil talk 23:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Let's get something clear Cailil. If I think one of GoodDay's mentors is not suitable I'll say it. I said on a previous occasion that I thought you were defending GoodDay despite being shown evidence that he was harming the project. I hope you have not been biding your time waiting to give me some sort of warning after my past comment. Oh, and when I get my own internet connection I'll contribute more substantially. Sitting in a library looking for a job doesn't give one much time. I contributed fine thanks very much when I did have an internet connection. Now, I would rather you didn't pay any more visits to my talk page in defence of GoodDay or his mentor. Thanks. Carson101 (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)