User talk:216.234.144.40

January 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from The Elements of Style. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the [ page history]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Skomorokh  18:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from attacking other contributors, as you did with this edit to The Elements of Style. Continued personal attacks may lead to being blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. Zhang He (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Zhang He (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please do not continue adding the Leddy blog post to The Elements of Style. Because several editors have already removed it, Wikipedia policy is that now you should stop edit warring and engage in discussion, at the article's talk page, to reach a consensus. I have already started a discussion at Talk:The Elements of Style. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 04:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at The Elements of Style. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. NJA (t/ c)  20:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am no longer citing the Leddy post - but now cite the Chronicle itself - same Chronicle that was cited to support much of the material already there. Thank you, and kindest regards.
 * No, you're not citing the same thing&mdash;the existing reference is to a published article in the Chronicle, your reference was to forum posts by random people. And t hat still does not address the issues I raised both here and at the article talkpage. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Referencing a discussion in a post supports the statement that "Pullum's assessment of Strunk and White drew much discussion" does it not? Again, not looking for a notable source to address the truth of any of those discussions, just want to show some evidence they exist.
 * Like I already said here, there is no point adding a sentence just to say "some random people don't agree with Pullum". For umpteenth time: if that opinion gets published in a reliable source, then we can include it. Until then, it is not notable. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight - tell me if this will do: Some of those folks are anything but random, although un-notable. A “notable source” to disagree with Pullum, and further the notable source can’t just be a blog post, but must be close to a published article of sorts, like a literary magazine? Do you understand what that does? Look, if I make the statement that Brett Favre going to the Minnesota Vikings have cause a lot of Packer fans to hate him, would the support for that statement not be citation to a few sports blogs in which people (non-notable random people) have expressed hatred for his defection to the Vikings? Popular sentiment has to have some way of being reflected here folks. Strunk and White is a very widely taught, followed, and read book, and if there are enough literary enthusiasts, professors, and non-notable but English speaking people that disagree with it, don't you think that's worth mentioning? And, what evidence do you expect to support that proposition if not blogs or posts showing the sentiments of such common folks?

Do I really need to cite to an article in USA today by the editor of the new york times or JRR Tolkien saying "Pullum's criticisms have struck a chord amongst the literary community" for you to be able to put something in? Is this what you are looking for?


 * You misunderstand me. The issue is not just the quality of the sources; another issue is whether or not the content is encyclopedic (which I have raised several times, and you have ignored). Encyclopedic content is generally issues that are important, published in reliable places and/or by important people. The fact that Strunk & White has attracted scathing criticism from a linguist is certainly encyclopedic. But the fact that that criticism is disagreed with by a few unimportant people in forums (not to imply that all these people are personally unimportant, but just that they are not important in the realm of the Strunk & White issue) is certainly not notable. Likewise, saying that Brett Favre's playing style were (hypothetically) criticized by some really important coach or commentator or something might be encyclopedic (pardon the analogy, I don't really follow American football), but saying that some random nobodies on a blog whined about him is certainly not encyclopedic. If those forum/blog issues become large enough that they attract mainstream media (for example, if New York Times runs a piece called something like "Blogosphere up in arms about Favre" or "Blogosphere rallies to defend Strunk & White"), then it might be encyclopedic on the basis of the attention it's gotten. But then it's the mainstream media piece, not the blog, that is cited in the article. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, please sign your posts. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Elements of Style (redux)
Regarding this edit that you just made after returning from your block:

How many times to do I need to ask you to read the reliable sources policy? Forum postings by random people are not reliable sources and there is not any consensus for adding them.

And how many times do I need to ask you to read the policy on consensus? When you already know that your edits are controversial and you already know that editors have expressed concern with them, you should not be making more edits that you know are disagreed with. Again, if you want to include something, first suggest it at a talk page and gain consensus for its inclusion before you go ahead and add it. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring again
Apparently you still have not read the edit warring policy for which you were blocked yesterday, because already you're starting to make controversial edits again without discussion, and against the existing consensus. It is not ok to keep on restoring your edit in slightly different versions, saying "is this ok yet?" each time. Because we have already reached a point where the edits are controversial, the only appropriate way for you to be editing this is to suggest additions at the talk page, and not add them until they gain the consensus of other editors. r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your posts
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. <b class="IPA">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 22:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)