Please do not attack other editors, as you did at:Talk:Manhood (Law & Order). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. If personal attacks continue, you may be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- MelbourneStar☆(talk to me) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- MelbourneStar☆(talk to me) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the above, I've told MelbourneStar that I won't get involved, and I'll stick to that. But generally, if you want to avoid edit warring, your best bet would be to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard - it would probably help to get a second opinion from there. - Bilby (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! As a quick suggestion, you really should consider raising the sourcing issue at the reliable sources noticeboard - at the moment you and MelbourneStar seem to be arguing in circles, and it isn't likely to come to a decent resolution. I'm not sure how it would pan out, but none of the outcomes seem appealing. If you raise it there you'll have a fairly definitive ruling - if they find it a sufficiently reliable source, then there shouldn't be any more problems in retaining the content. Personally, I don't have a problem with using TV episodes as sources for their own content, but getting a neutral third party to comment seems like the best way forward. - Bilby (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Anon. has shown the s/he likes to argue, and go for the low-blows (insults), so instead of going out of my way to talk it out, again, I'll be taking it to ANI. If this verbal abuse or just no good faith whatsover is your thing, stay, but I'm sick of it...I get served with this 'maturity' by people every day at school, not on Wikipedia. Enough's enough, s/he wants the bigger playing arena, that being ANI, I'll be pleased to go. Thank You anyway. -- MelbourneStar☆(talk to me) 16:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt recommended WP:RSN, so I'm making the same recommendation here. I don't think AN/I will come out in anyone's benefit, but going to WP:RSN will, at least, provide a neutral voice. AN/I is likely to recommend the same, so this will short circuit the discussion and, hopefully, provide a way forward. - Bilby (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All due respect, Bilby, I have had enough with the insults, I have tried my very best to co-operate with this editor, that it's time to know that s/he won't co-operate with me. I'm sick of it. Some people reguardless who they are need to learn some respect, otherwise no one will take this serious. No one has the right to be disrespectful. I go on Wikipedia to escape from the trauma at school I get handed down to me everyday...not to go on WP and get the continuation, okay? If you want to help this editor in the future, that is good luck to you. ANI maybe won't fix things, but I think it's time for someone to learn something from it. Don't know what else to say. -- MelbourneStar☆(talk to me) 16:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In point of fact, MelbourneStar, you agreed on May 14 on the article's talk page that the information could be added to the article on the basis of the credits serving as a reliable source. Furthermore, you agreed on April 19 and again on April 24 to the same exact thing. I don't know what changed your mind and honestly I don't care. You haven't "tried your very best". You haven't tried at all. As I've said at least twice before, if having an independent source is of such vital importance to you, then go find one instead of reverting and complaining. In the time it took you to type out the two messages on this page, you could have found a source that met your requirements. So maybe it's you who'd rather argue? 76.204.89.112 (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you have so much blame, for everyone but yourself. Yes when I get back on WP in a few hours time, I will be argueing, on the ANI, due to your unacceptible behaviour. Talk soon. -- MelbourneStar☆(talk to me) 22:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because that, along with this response, is a so much more productive use of your time than finding the source you're demanding... 76.204.89.112 (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you're in the right about the sourcing - and I agree that you are - edit warring to add content that insults another editor isn't going to get the content kept. If you take out the insult you can solve the problem through dispute resolution, which does generally work well. Otherwise, this is just a path to progressively longer blocks. I can understand why you would be pissed off over the argument, but there are models in Wikipedia which could quickly fix the problem without escalating the dispute. - Bilby (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the 19th of June...meaning the Manhood article will be open to edits again. To take a better approach on this, I think we both should discuss more respectively and civilly. I understand where you are coming from on this issue, but let me stress this out to you, that there are some things that you'll have to understand, to where I'm coming from on this issue, and then everything will work perfectly. Thank You. -- MelbourneStar☆(talk to me) 07:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand just fine where you're coming from. Understanding your opinion doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with it and I'm not going to change my opinion to suit you. I'll suggest again that if you aren't satisfied with the episode credits serving as a reference then find a source that does satisfy you. 76.204.90.136 (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well to suit both opinions, I'll be re-wording the paragraph. -- MelbourneStar☆(talk to me) 08:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Manhood (Law & Order), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. -- MelbourneStar☆(talk to me) 05:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Manhood (Law & Order), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bidgee (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Manhood (Law & Order), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 05:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
