User talk:2.220.204.70

Welcome

Changing "explained" to "said" is not an "unhelpful edit". If you think it is, you've got no clue about how to write good English. Take your tiresome templates elsewhere.

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Van Tuong Nguyen, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Note that this has nothing to do with WP:NPOV, as the original text quoted in the source was "explained", not "said" as you've explained. Changing it to your version would make it an instant violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 06:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Fuck off, you stupid prick. I changed the word "explained" to "said". This is not vandalism (your first template) or original research (your second template). You need to learn some basic writing skills, in particular about how to report other people's views neutrally. This does not involve regurgitating sources word for word. Try thinking a little bit. Consider this example:

The creationist _____ that bananas were clear evidence for the existence of an intelligent creator

Which one of these is the most neutral choice for blank?

1. explained
2. claimed
3. said

And how much does it matter what word is used in any source you might happen to have found in which this statement appears?

1. fuck all

Now, think about that, learn a bit about writing, and about humility, and don't dare to leave any insulting and dishonest templates on this or any other talk page.

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 days for serial breaches of this site's talk page guidelines, its rule of 'no personal attacks', its requirement for civil communication and abuse of its rules for use of edit sumaries (after being warned[1][2]) as evidenced in the following diffs[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first--Cailil ^talk 12:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Next steps

I've discussed this situation with the blocking admin. I think we are close to agreement, although I'll only speak for myself here. The uncivil language used by you will not be tolerated, and is not acceptable, even if provoked. That said, I see plenty of evidence that responses to you have been inappropriate. If you agree to moderate your language, the next step is for the blocking admin and I to figure out which one of us unblocks you. That will happen as soon as we see agreement to use more moderate language.

That doesn't settle the whole incident. I am not happy with some of the language directed at you, and am looking for some apologies. No promises, but I don't want you to think that two sides can say improper things, and only one side is admonished.

On the merit of the edit, I agree that "explained" is wrong. However, before supporting a change to "said" I notice that the source is silent on who made the claim about the letter being late. I read it quickly, perhaps I missed something, but I'd like to discuss with you the proper wording.

I've separately asking the admin providing the protection to more fully explain the action. Should the protection be lifted, you can make the edit, or you might let me do it. Your call.--SPhilbrickT 20:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration but I won't be contributing to this encyclopaedia again. There is a poisonous atmosphere here. Why the hell would I even stoop to the level of asking for this punitive block to be lifted? It's all very well to say uncivil language won't be tolerated, but seriously, do you expect perfect politeness when a constructive edit is met with accusations of vandalism, original research and sockpuppetry, reverts, page protections with dishonest reasons, dishonest templates being left on my talk page, snide comments about how everyone would have been nicer if I hadn't been angry about people being rude to me, etc, etc? Put yourself in my position and tell me honestly how you would have felt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.138.219.49 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to put myself in your position. That exercise is very troubling, as it left me convinced I would be extremely angry if I were in your position. I'd want to haul off and hit someone, or at the very least, use extremely rude language to express my frustration. I'd also be royally pissed off that someone would suggest I have to promise to do better, when none of the editors who trashed me are being held to account. I think you've been treated badly by more than one editor, and I'm sorry for your experience. FWIW, I'm reading this because I came here to remove the template implying vandalism which I now see has been removed. I honestly hope you take a few days away, and then conclude that you shouldn't judge an entire project by the actions of a couple over-zealous editors. As I suspect you know, the status of IPs on this project has always been contentious. Significant amounts of the positive content have been added by IPs, yet the vast majority of vandalism is by IPs. Some editors have the ability to deal with it properly, some do not. Just like cop who works in an extremely rough section of town, or a soldier who has to exist in an enemy area where it isn't always easy to separate friend from foe, sometimes mistakes are made. Unlike the cop or soldier who can lose their life with a mistake, the mistakes made here can be fixed.

I still think the Van Tuong Nguyen needs to be edited. Your observation that it shouldn't say "explained" was spot on. That said, I'm not convinced the right answer is replacing it with "said". To be honest, I'm wrapped up in the process surrounding the issue, plus real life issues, so haven't sat down and decided what the right edit should be. I'll get to it, but maybe not today.--SPhilbrickT 00:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I've been watching this unfold with mounting horror having come across it by accident. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that we shouldn't call people [whatever], it's also true - and at least equally important - that we are not supposed to WP:BITE new people and this does not appear to have been followed. It became positively Kafkaesque (sorry if that's an unoriginal observation, I haven't waded through everything) and really not nice to behold. I'd very much endorse SPhilbrick's comments, that you could have a break and then think about coming back. I have walked away from this thing more times than I care to remember, over a boring number of years. I usually seem to have ended up coming back, and I think it would be good if you did too. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It has indeed been Kafka-esque. A couple of people have assumed good faith, and that is appreciated very much. A sadly larger group have joined in the provocation and attacks. A good faith edit should never, ever have resulted in this. Dave1185 is the root of the problem and his ilk are, I think, a significant problem. They have done a very successful job here of driving away someone who made only constructive edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.5.27.93 (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

For clarity

Just so there's not confusion, I have talked to the blocking admin, and there is agreement to end the block as soon as you acknowledge that some of your edits were in violation of the rules and that you intend to follow the rules. These are hardly major admissions, as there is zero doubt that some of your edits were in violation of the rules. Editing form other IPs is prohibited, and will result in blocks for those IPs as soon as found. I support the blocks for the use of other IP addresses. I support the lifting of the original block, with the conditions mentioned, and the lifting of the original block will eliminate the end to block any other address.--SPhilbrickT 22:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The above was posted before seeing that you are using yet another IP to evade a block. I've been bending over backward to support you, and you aren't making it easy. Your original posts were defensible, the actions by WP editors against you were not, the uncivil language used by you was not acceptable, and you were blocked. I can defend the use of the Spanish IP given the circumstances as I understand them, but I cannot defend the continued use of different IPs and a failure to address the situation leading to the block. The offer to reduce the block to time served is now void.--SPhilbrickT 22:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)