User talk:Jedi3: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
You've already been warned not to edit war by the admin. You've also been told that many of your your quotes are not memorable are clearly designed at POV-pushing. Next time you talk about discussion or cooperation, do remember that you yourself edit-warred and indulge in blatant lying. This is not cooperation. if you continue then you can be blocked. [[User:MonsterHunter32|MonsterHunter32]] ([[User talk:MonsterHunter32|talk]]) 13:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC) |
You've already been warned not to edit war by the admin. You've also been told that many of your your quotes are not memorable are clearly designed at POV-pushing. Next time you talk about discussion or cooperation, do remember that you yourself edit-warred and indulge in blatant lying. This is not cooperation. if you continue then you can be blocked. [[User:MonsterHunter32|MonsterHunter32]] ([[User talk:MonsterHunter32|talk]]) 13:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
:I tried to get you both to move to more civil behavior and to cease the edit-warring. Instead, you have both continued. As such, I have blocked you both for a week. Please use this time to reconsider your actions and plan to work better together in the future. Thank you. ~ [[User:UDScott|UDScott]] ([[User talk:UDScott|talk]]) 15:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:25, 16 March 2018
.
Stop edit-warring. Follow rules.
WQ:WQ: "We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people." Your "quotes" are mere copies not even relevant beyond themselves in many caes or at most a few websites or books. Now please stop edit-warring. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- "can be" is not an exclusionary statement, it means that this is (only) one criteria, and many of these quotes have indeed fame relevance to many people as they are quoted in notable works. Also WQ:WQ is not policy or even guideline.
- Notability of quote doesn't mean notability of others. Also what you are reading is actually what wikiquote is. It's more than a policy or guideline. And there is no criteria about sourcing or simply the author or work. The quote itself must be notable, not whatever you want to add. Your own reasons are unvalid. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- What do you mean by Notability of quote doesn't mean notability of others.?? I honestly cannot think what you mean by that sentnece. There is no point in quoting a page that is not even a guideline, let alone a policy. I agree that it must be notable, but I don't agree with your definition of notable, your particular definition of that word is not defined as such you claim it is in any policy page or even at any guidelines page. --Jedi3 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- You well know what I mean. There is no rule existing that says you can add simply based on an author or its source. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- What do you mean by Notability of quote doesn't mean notability of others.?? I honestly cannot think what you mean by that sentnece. There is no point in quoting a page that is not even a guideline, let alone a policy. I agree that it must be notable, but I don't agree with your definition of notable, your particular definition of that word is not defined as such you claim it is in any policy page or even at any guidelines page. --Jedi3 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Notability of quote doesn't mean notability of others. Also what you are reading is actually what wikiquote is. It's more than a policy or guideline. And there is no criteria about sourcing or simply the author or work. The quote itself must be notable, not whatever you want to add. Your own reasons are unvalid. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
"You well know what I mean." No I don't. "There is no rule existing that says you can add simply based on an author or its source." What do you mean? The quotes I added were added because they are relevant and notable and they are properly sourced. --Jedi3 (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes you do. Please stop pretending. How are they relevant or notable? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes you do. Please stop pretending.No I don't. How are they relevant or notable? Which quote are you talking about: Please explain on the article talkpage not here. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- You can see my edit history at Aurangzeb to know which ones. It will be time-consuminh otherwise. You claimed they are notable. How? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- It will be time-consuminh otherwise. You have to discuss removed quotes on the talkpage so that we can arrive at a consenus, and you have to sort the quotes and add your different arguments. Please do, I asked you several times now. Otherwise I cannot know what quote you mean.--Jedi3 (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- I only need to follow the rules, not yours. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- It will be time-consuminh otherwise. You have to discuss removed quotes on the talkpage so that we can arrive at a consenus, and you have to sort the quotes and add your different arguments. Please do, I asked you several times now. Otherwise I cannot know what quote you mean.--Jedi3 (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- You can see my edit history at Aurangzeb to know which ones. It will be time-consuminh otherwise. You claimed they are notable. How? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Edit-warring
Please stop the ongoing edit-warring you and another user are currently engaged in. I have no idea who is correct in this dispute that involves several pages. But the continued reverting does not add value to this site and does not make the situation any clearer. If this continues, I will be forced to block both of you until it can be better resolved. Thank you. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
You've already been warned not to edit war by the admin. You've also been told that many of your your quotes are not memorable are clearly designed at POV-pushing. Next time you talk about discussion or cooperation, do remember that you yourself edit-warred and indulge in blatant lying. This is not cooperation. if you continue then you can be blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I tried to get you both to move to more civil behavior and to cease the edit-warring. Instead, you have both continued. As such, I have blocked you both for a week. Please use this time to reconsider your actions and plan to work better together in the future. Thank you. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)