User talk:MoonMetropolis: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:32, 23 October 2013

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, MoonMetropolis, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your recent discussion with another editor does not conform to Wikipedia's policy on Civility towards other editors. The focus in any dispute should be on edits and never editors.

There's a page about the Civility policy that has tips on how to interact with other editors. If issues continue, you may need to look into Dispute Resolution.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ES &L 16:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here in various forms since circa 2005 and you posting a condescending comment accusing me of making "smartarsed replies" doesn't really make you look any better than me in this case.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around? Yet you make comments like that? I'm shocked. Yes, admins have had to tell people to stop posting on ANI before - an experienced editor would have apologized on their second post in that situation, not be even more uncivil ES &L 10:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has told me to stop posting on ANI. Ever. In fact, I highly doubt that any mod would tell someone to flat-out not post anything on ANI. If the user was repeatedly misbehaving on ANI (or on any other page), the admins would simply block them. Also, I'm pretty sure that you're the one being "uncivil" here. Oh, and you can "believe" whatever you want to believe.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - nobody has yet told you to stop posting on ANI. You have been asked to stop being uncivil and unhelpful on ANI. If you do not understand the request, either ignore it or ask for clarification - do not accuse the OP of being drunk, or incoherent. That is the supposedly "uncivil message" that you need to collect from this discussion. ES &L 11:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been "asked" by precisely one person, and that would be you. If anyone else thought that I was being uncivil, then they would have said something. But calling an incoherent posting incoherent isn't exactly the same as telling someone to go fuck themselves.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were advised by TWO people that the post was NOT incoherent. As such, calling it incoherent - TWICE - was uncivil - someone who has been around for a number of years knows that. People come to ANI with real issues. Downplaying them or being condescending to someone with a REAL issue is extremely problematic - of course, anyone who has spent time with real people in social settings knows that too. Look, I've been extremely polite with you - absolutely nothing uncivil with what I've said. If you want to get defensive and argue that you have the RIGHT to make fun of people, I'm shocked - long term editors know better than that. Consensus is that the post was legible and coherent - live with it, as that's the Wikipedia model. ES &L 12:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other person never said anything about it being coherent or not and I fail to see how someone saying that Jimbo told them something about how they haven't been anywhere interesting their life is a "real issue". And, if this is "extremely polite" by your standards, then I'd hate to see you being "rude". You could hardly be more smug or condescending here, particularly the comment implying that I've never "spent time with real people in social settings". You might as well just openly call me autistic while you're at it. Also, I thought your last post was "final"?--MoonMetropolis (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been smug, condescending or implied anything - and with my extensive knowledge of autism, it's rather offensive that you would go down the route of attributing such malice to my suggestions. How about you try reading everything I have said without the chip on your shoulder, and try and see in in the friendly, non-threatening manner that it was all intended to be - life's much nicer without battleground thinking ES &L 13:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pretend for a second like you're not being smug and condescending with comments like "of course, anyone who has spent time with real people in social settings knows that too." Anyone who has spent time with real people in social settings knows how supercilious a remark like that is. And actually going through my contributions and adding completely unnecessary tags to one of my articles takes it to a whole new level of passive-aggressive. I'm sorry if you feel the need to start some kind of ridiculous online feud with me, but I really don't want anything to do with it.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're pure wrong - so please don't ever accuse me of lying. As for that single article, it was unreferenced (imdb doesn't count) and showed no signs of notability - the tags were both valid, as you already know (being a long-time contributor). You're clearly the one feuding here, and you're right - I want no part of it. My original goal - asking you not to be condescending and uncivil to people who ask for help on ANI - is complete. I will leave you and your shoulder-chip to yourself. ES &L 09:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm "pure wrong"? Wow, you sure told me who's who and what's what alright. I now see the error of my ways, O wise one. The page you added tags to consisted almost entirely of a plot summary and, as a long-time editor such as yourself should know, films are their own sources. Ergo, your pathetic little attempt at taking a passive-aggressive swipe at me by adding unnecessary tags to an article I created just shows how truly petty and immature you really are. And yes, I am a long-time editor, so, once again, your attempt at taking a snarky swipe at me falls flat on its face. I know I'm a long-time editor. Do I care if you believe me? Not in the slightest. Now please, by all means, leave me and my "shoulder-chip" to myself and go act like a pompous, arrogant child on someone else's talk page.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi MoonMetropolis! 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! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Kick-Heart

Hello, MoonMetropolis,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Kick-Heart should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kick-Heart .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Videomaniac29 (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for some of your uploads

Thanks for your uploads to Wikipedia. There is an issue with some of them, specifically:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the images because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the images, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image files themselves. Please update the image descriptions with URLs that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MoonMetropolis, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Oregonian

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Your recent editing history at The Oregonian (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2013 (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. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

Speedy deletion nomination of Princess from the Moon

A tag has been placed on Princess from the Moon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No sources to support the notability of this film as per Wikipedia protocol.