User talk:216.234.145.123

I haven't made any "reversions" - each time I have tried to submit something acceptable to the censors, the latest of which I believed to be entirely reasonable. You guys are a bunch of nazis.

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there is not yet consensus to include that blog post, as numerous editors have already removed it. If you want to include it, you must present your arguments for inclusion at the talk page (Talk:The Elements of Style) and gain consensus before adding it, otherwise you are considered to be edit warring (you have already reverted the article 6 times). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 16:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Because you have continued edit warring and not waiting for discussion, I have had no choice but to report you here. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
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. --SineBot (talk) 18:51, 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)  20:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, this is just unfair - i've attempted again and again to insert something that is acceptable, and have asked that, in my inability to find something acceptable, that you yourselves put in something that does the trick. Again, you've allowed Pullum to take some serious shots at Strunk and White, and allow readers to take what he says as gospel. If you just do a google search on "Pullum criticism Strunk" you will see that numerous folks disagree with Pullum. I don't need to cite professor leddy's blog - the blog entries out there are numerous. Again, the point I want to have in the wikipedia entry is to point out that numerous people disagree with Pullum's assessment, cite to some examples, and leave it at that. It's not to promote an individual, or give credence to what a particular individual says. I don't think this is unacceptable. I find that your unwillingness to compromise at all is, unfortunate, and quite frankly, apalling, bullying, and excessive censorship.
 * Random blog posts (on non-notable blogs) and user-generated comments are not reliable sources (please read that guideline to see what I mean). Again, when this opinion is published in a reliable source, then you can consider adding it. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As for your being blocked...you were given ample chances to read the edit warring policy, which clearly states that you risk being blocked if you behave this way. Hopefully when you are unblocked you will abide by the guidelines and keep your edits to the talk page, instead of making controversial additions without waiting to gain consensus. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Rookie mistake!

But, I think you miss the point - I should not need notable sources here. I am pointing out that there are disagreements with Mr. Pullum (and, quite frankly, some of the blog entry responses agree with him as well), and citing some examples as evidence of such disagreements. I am not asserting the factual truth of any of those who disagree with Pullum. I do not agree with everything Strunk says, and I don't agree with everyting Pullum says. But, do you see the difference? If I say that Tom Luginbill was ACC Rookie of the Year (which I did in his Wikipedia entry), then it is a fact that requires support. And, I cited to an article in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution in which they report that. On the other hand, I cannot make a comment that many people disagree with Pullum, or that his criticisms of Strunk are without controversy, without providing examples of that can I? The examples are the websites I cite (and there are numerous other ones out there - including http://www.dailywritingtips.com/taking-another-look-at-strunk-and-white/ - by the way, the author of Untangling Tolkien also disagrees with Pullum - I don't take that as the truth, but the disagreement is there, whether he's a notable source or not.  I hope you understand the difference.  The fact that I am trying to support is that there is discussion, not that the people who disagree with Pullum are correct.
 * The website you linked to agrees with Pullum, so I don't see what it has to do with anything.
 * And again (I already said this at the article talk page, but perhaps you haven't seen it), everything has people that disagree with it. Wikipedia is not concerned with the opinions of random normal people like you and me, unless they in of themselves become notable (for example, if there were a New York Times article running "Angry mob of 1,000 tars and feathers linguist for criticizing Strunk & White; Barack Obama voices his opinion"). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:48, 27 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</b> talk/contribs 22:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)