User talk:SharpQuillPen

SharpQuillPen, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi SharpQuillPen! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

There is a rule against reverting excessively. You have reverted me at least three times today, so if you do it again I'll lodge a formal complaint. See WP:3RR if you have questions.--Ring Cinema (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although you have every right to lodge a concern about changes to your reverting, the record will show that what you often revert has standing in the plot and that there is absolute fact to be shown in the script. So, go ahead and do so and I will respond in the appropriate manner. I do not take well to your actions of threats and smug expressions that seem to reflect more on the person to which the changes are made than the expression to be reviewed. I totally understand that Wikipedia does not respond to how someone acts in this article review process but I serious doubt that Wikipedia finds it advantageous for someone with such a high degree for their own abilities to not put forth suggestion that can be without personal attack. I realize with the short period in which I have become aware of you that this is not within your mental agility to understand. But be that has it may, I am willing to put up with it in order to at least sustain the merits and intent of Wikipedia's community of contributors. And will as well lodge a complain about your behavior. As you so aptly and often characterized, true and accurate.SharpQuillPen (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is English your second language? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find your remark both insensitive, inappropriate and beyond the politeness by which the Wiki community functions. If you wish to continue in this manner I will report this line of expression to have some of sanction leveed which I believe can include, as I have seen with other actions, formal notification of possible further administrative action. I love it when you yourself prove to be your own worst enemy and my proponent.SharpQuillPen (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no shame in learning English as a second language! I'm sorry if you're offended. Some of your sentences seem atypical for a native speaker. For example, "I serious doubt that Wikipedia finds it advantageous for someone with such a high degree for their own abilities to not put forth suggestion that can be without personal attack." I think a native speaker would know to use "seriously". I think a native speaker would not say "someone with such a high degree for their own abilities" which doesn't really mean anything. The last phrase, too, "to not put forth suggestion that can be without personal attack" -- that's not really good English. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not find it possible in WHATEVER response you make to avoid any type of statement that does not in some manner cause offense. From what I remember "good English" is a phrase that should be avoided for the more acceptable conventional expression of "that is English not well written." The world is filled with people as well as the US with a varied and sometime unexpected life experience. When will it come to you that it is best to refrain from characterizing people, let alone issue insulting statements. There is no escaping that your statements are filled with some type of subconscious problem that instead of holding your tongue you can't but speuw forth. There would have to be a tremendous change in how conduct is made in the development of this article for me to have any ability to believe that you are sincere in the Wiki principle of a community of contributors. I do not like that assessment but I have been slapped one too many times across the face to think otherwise. It seems that there is absent the ability to understand that you will be held accountable at some pint in your life with your actions. With me, that time has arrived and awaits your change.SharpQuillPen (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

There is a rule against reverting excessively. You have reverted me at least three times today, so if you do it again I'll lodge a formal complaint. See WP:3RR if you have questions.

I've opened several discussion sections, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been well established that you have a tendency to issue threats of 3 revert policy, go no further and instead in what seems to be an attempt to thwart contributors establish new TALK page sections in order for what I assume is am attempt at gaining some sort of support. It seems that others have averted this trump and have decided to reply elsewhere in the on the TALK page. The history of this article seems to point out that others have attempt to contribute to this article and have been reverted by YOU. YOUR excessive amount of association with all parts of the article make it impossible for those contributions by others to sustain your desire. It very well could have been that if you had not taken such a passiveness of the content of the article and had integrated rather than revert the contributions of others that reverting YOUR never ending characteristic overbearing, inappropriate, and insulting edit summaries. I see now that you have gone beyond attending to merely the plot. Is this a veiled attempt to show that you have more than just a single interest in your Wiki activities? A review of your history will in most all likelihood reflect the change which at the last session of your editing it had nothing to do with any original research contributions to the article. That when editing the article that if you find something wanting then as others have done in the attempt to improve the article look something up in the internet and provide the citation instead of merely indicating the absence. It seems to be a feeble and lazy attempt at indicating that your interest in Wiki is more than just reverting others efforts. Or is it your sick enjoyment thwarting contributions from the Wiki community? And do remember that YOUR actions are included in the review of any 3 revert notifications; it is not a one-way street process. I thank whoever developed the system for Wiki that includes a history of contributions and reversions so that what someone purports to be a violation of someone is really a concerted effort to make all aspects of an article or a portion of an article, that when others attempt to contribute these are reverted and then because of the substantial attribution of what appears in at least the plot that ANY change by someone other than yourself appears to be an excessive amount of reverting when in fact YOU associating yourself with basically the whole section makes it virtually impossible but not in the spirit of Wiki community contribution to do so without your then predictable issue of a 3 revert threat. You seem to have out lasted your attempt at sincerity in the spirit of the Wiki community. Tell me, if I were to review your reverts would they be a substantial amount of your "contributions" instead of ANY original research contributions. Let me point would as has been done time and time again, that you seem to be unaware of at least portions of the film which with YOUR insistence of "proof", which never seems to apply to YOU, made YOU the fool by insisting on language that was not only contrary to the film but you in an attempt to make the decision about something was willing to accept YOU OWN """""SPECULATION"""""! So, please find someone else to pay the honor of your attentions.SharpQuillPen (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

There is a rule against reverting excessively. You have reverted me at least three times today, so if you do it again I'll lodge a formal complaint. See WP:3RR if you have questions. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to ask my permission to do so. If you want to make a threat then follow through and accept the remediation, unlike the last time.SharpQuillPen (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2014 (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.

Edit warring at The English Patient (film)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at The English Patient (film). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:SharpQuillPen reported by User:Ring Cinema (Result: 48 hours). EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 4 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

On the Walter Brookes Spong page, your edit caused a wikilink error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
On the The National Fund page, your edit caused a wikilink error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sic

I see you have been converting "can't" to "cannot" in articles, and this is good because we prefer formal language at Wikipedia and avoid contractions. However, you have also placed {{sic}} after the word in several quotes or album/song titles, and I believe this is an incorrect use of that template. According to Wiktionary, wikt:can't is a valid contraction.

If you believe that "can't" is not valid, could you please link me to a source so I can understand why not.-gadfium 00:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, someone else came through and did that extra stuff. that is when I got an error message to my box. Feel free to correct if you know how.SharpQuillPen (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll take out the 'sic' tags.-gadfium 01:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]