User talk:NeedsLove

Harmonic (disambiguation)[edit]

Hi NeedsLove, thanks for your contributions to Harmonic (disambiguation) but I think you need to read MOS:DAB. These kind of pages are only to assist navigation to the correct page. For that reason they are kept as short as possible - all encyclopaedic information goes in the articles themselves. Nor are they dictionary definitions or etymologies. That kind of information goes in Wiktionary. Regards, Spinning Spark 10:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Talk:Harmonic (disambiguation). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Accusing a good faith editor of "your unreasonable deletings are obviously useless and harmful vandalism" and "you have proved yourself to be the cruel personal attacker to be banned forever" is personal attack rather than dealing with the issue at hand. Spinning Spark 23:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harmonic (disambiguation). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Spinning Spark 23:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you needlessly accuse one more editor of "vandalism" or being a "cruel personal attacker" or anything similar then I will block you. Spinning Spark 14:31, 8 May 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 at Harmonic (disambiguation). 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. m.o.p 18:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NeedsLove (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The current lead of Harmonic (disambiguation) is wrong for musicians and too many people who have ever played instruments well, especially strings. When they use the term "Harmonic", it DOESN'T "USUALLY refer to the frequency components of a time-varying signal". I tried to correct this wrong lead, but, ignorant and rude ADMINS interrupted repeatedly against Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Harassment, Wikipedia:No personal attack, MOS:DAB, and so on. As Hong Kong Wikimedians have already proposed, Wikipedia should accept as admins ONLY PROFESSIONAL persons who have made public their own real name and telephone number on their own will.
ADMINS may be User:Michael Bednarek, User:Spinningspark, User:Just plain Bill, User:Kleinzach, and User:Master of Puppets. They have ganged up on me like Nazis without any valid-reasonable explanation, though I have just obeyed to MOS:DAB, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Consensus, and so on.
Please read MOS:DAB and WP:5P from the top to the bottom. And find that there is no guidelines when a disambiguation page need/can have both of "Adjective" section and "Noun" section, and that all of the leads edited by me are just one sentence and fulfilling MOS:DAB, and that MOS:DAB says on the top, "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". Therefore, it is very evident that ONLY ADMINS have been terribly wrong against MOS:DAB, WP:5P, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:No personal attack, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Vandalism, etw. and that ONLY ADMINS have repeated edit warring, unfortunately. First of all, those who are easily haunted by the delusion that Wikipedia's MOSs in their head are perfect and those who invite editor's suspicions of abusing three-revert rule| for personal attack, should resign adminship NOW or should be replaced with adequate professional persons QUICKLY. I haven't reverted three times. I have just corrected each time, adding new parts. Those who have repeated WRONG, USELESS and HARMFUL reverts are ONLY the ADMINS who couldn't have achieved accountability to me and all readers.
MOS:DAB says, "It should begin a sentence fragment ending with a colon, introducing a bulleted list:", but this guideline has been repeatedly violated by the ADMINS themselves(even now). Therefore, I have to refrain from changing the most unpreferable part and I can't understand what they are saying, therefore, I have to ask various questions to THEM. But, THEY have only cooked up as if my questions were personal attacks. For example, a person A found a doubtful character B who seemed to be crazy over personal-attacking(abusing) A. A politely asked B natural questions for self-defense, but B couldn't answered, on the contrary, B escalated personal-attacks to terrorist-attacks. Then, if there is a person C who accused A of personal-attacking, not B, it is very obvious that B and C is complicity.
As you know, I just ask questions that I have been forced to ask by the ADMINS, and tried to understand each other and stop the ADMINS' personal attack(now, including ADMINS' criminal threatening and terribly unfair Blocking), but they couldn't have explained sincerely at all because I am innocent while they are irresponsible, dishonest, unfair and illegal against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as mentioned above. This blocking is too unfair.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring, and this appeal would not get that reversed since you don't address the edit warring issue at all. Regardless, unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I warned you above you could be blocked for personal attacks. Since you have called other editors (besides me) Nazis - in your block appeal of all places - I have extended your block by a week. If you do it again you will lose the privilege of posting on this page altogether. Spinning Spark 02:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Gellhorn 1978[edit]

Dear NeedsLove, her I copy my 5 May posting to Michael Bednarik. It contains a needed correction about Gellhorn's attitude to Stalinism in the wiki-lemma dating before 5th of May: Dear Michael, the lemma about Martha Gellhorn tells us that Gellhorn never criticized Stalin's communism. That is not true. 'Travels with myself and another' (1978) contains a rather sour but interesting chapter about her 1972 travelling to Moscow; there she visited "Mrs. M." - and all details in that text makes us believe that that person has been Osip Mandelstam's widow Nadjezjda Mandelstam. In that text Gellhorn is very, very critical about Stalin and his period. Because I have only the Dutch translation of the book I cannot give citations in English. (The chapter in Dutch: 'Een blik op Moedertje Rusland' = A view on Mom Russia). My suggestion: maybe an expert wiki-man in your country could control and correct the lemma. - Excuse my poor English! Greetings from Cuijk (Holland), 195.241.219.56 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 195.241.219.56 (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]