Contents

User talk:B9 hummingbird hovering: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:10, 1 June 2010

I've noticed several things about the articles you edit and I wanted to bring them to your attention:

1. Parentheticals: I find too many of these in the articles you edit. I don't know if you are adding them or if someone else is, but they need to be kept to a bare minimum. If you must, use footnotes instead.
2. Excessive use of inline citations: One citation at the end of a sentence or paragraph is fine, but multiple citations don't work well when it comes to readability. You may combine citations into one reference to solve this problem, but you should consider that multiple citations are often the sign of other problems at work (but not always).
3. Placement of cites: Should appear after punctuation with no spacing
4. Lead section: Use the lead to summarize the main points of the article in a way that benefits the reader and does not focus on trivia

That's it for now. More later. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your unwillingness to participate in attempts to reach a voluntary agreement with you regarding your writing, I have proposed that you be banned from editing here. The discussion is at WP:ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that you are continuing to post your question on a number of talk pages. Please, reconsider. This in itself is likely to get you into trouble, as your message is not neutral and may be interpreted as attempting to sway the outcome of the ban discussion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post messages like the ones you posted here and here, to article talk pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to user talk pages is one thing; posting to an article talk page (that is meant to deal with article content only) is another. I am specifically asking you to stop doing the latter; whether or not it is appropriate to do the former is not something I am intervening in or making a comment on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those pages are User Talk pages? B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, both of those pages are article talk pages. The page you posted the above reply on is a user talk page which is why it says "User talk:" at the beginning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I am getting upset. I'm crying.B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I expect your only recourse if you wish to continue on the project is to change your tactics. You certainly need to reconsider your methods of communication in this dispute. You need to communicate plainly to others at that ANI thread and in that RFC, demonstrating that you can understand and respect their concerns and, where necessary, modify your approach - is what Moonridden said on her talk page - and I would take that point seriously if I were you. Also you have an email SatuSuro 13:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you would be the first in this matter that has even looked beneath the surface. All the others have ticked the box without even doing any independent research. Helping out editing mates. That is a partisan cohort. I name them malign because they are misrepresenting me. I don't wish to defend myself. I would like independent impartial investigation into my entire editing history. I would also like to know some system of redress for such consensus-bullying styled as mentoring. This ANI and RFC is all far too bureaucratic for my liking and the whole way of it smacks of disempowerment and scapegoating. I have to talk simple like. There is nothing wrong with my standard of communication. I am open to analysis and criticism but that is not what is going on here. This is bullying and a witch-hunt and if this is what consensus is and if this is what Wikipedia is becoming: giving the demon a name I call it A Haven For Power-Hungry Separatist "you must conform and be like me and how we want you to be or else die" (your editing privileges will be now be terminated) that I will not ratify. That is what that ANI and RFC on the face of it mean to me. They are just forms, filling out forms. If I have to fill out forms all the time there is something wrong and it isn't me. I am happy to enter into dialogue but I will not fill out forms. I do not agree to many of their proposals. I tender that they will be found to be amplification and misdirection on examination. With many of the matters in hand taken out of context. The way I am being handled is badly and then they wonder why I am brissly when it is a conditioned response. I am going to have minimal involvement on Wikipedia as a result anyway. I actually find other projects more interesting at the moment. But I often add linkages to primary resources on Wikipedia and disenabling my editing account as such would not be in the keeping with the grand charter: which is informing people. This I exactly what I have been doing: qualitative informing. Moreover, if this draconian heavy-handed bullying is what this community is condoning and hence becoming, ICKYUCKY, I lovingly cleanse my hands of it anyway. The tides will change and so will this exclusivity and such misuse of administrative privileges and misplaced authority. There is no inclusionism and purity and there is no honesty in this system if I am banned. I am repeatedly being threatened with it being a forgone conclusion that I am going to be silenced. I have even been instructed against approaching independent people. But I will not be bullied and threatened which is what is happening. This is wrong.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]