User talk:Chaheel Riens/archive pm09pm 1

unblock
I would also like IP Block exemption to prevent this sort of thing happening in the future - this is the second time I have been inadvertantly IP blocked. Thanks. a_man_alone (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅, per below. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summary
Be careful what you put in an edit summary as it cannot be deleted. The comments made on the Top Gear Test Track page may be construed (rightly or wrongly) as a personal attack. The policies you have quoted also do not needed to be read by any person involved in the discussion which you are referring to as they are all being complied with already. As I said be careful what you say in an edit summary as it is nigh on impossible to remove.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if edit summaries are deemed to be offensive, they can easily be suppressed by an oversighter. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Oversight cannot only suppress an edit summary the whole edit must be suupressed. It is nigh on impossible to only suppress an edit summary.--17:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that yourself and two anonymous editors in no way classifies as "multiple users" and does not show a consensus. Most anon editors (but not all) are vandals and add information which should be reverted, you are the only registered user you have cited.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I detect a tone of incivility and attempt to intimidate here. Calm down or you yourself are sailing as close if not closer to claiming ownership than you are accusing other editors of. Also the list of accusation you have claimed are all bogus with regards to this topic and are bordering on dredging up irrelevancies to further your bogus point accusations. The way I edit is not up for discussion and any discussion regarding it will be totally pointless and any "instructions" to change my editing style or similar will be wholly ignored. The way I edit will not be changed at the whim of any other editor or group of editors. The discussion took place in a civil manner and was initiated by myself at the very beginning of the use of the in-jokes in the article. You simply dislike what I did which is valid but it doesn’t give you or any editor the right to make up wild, baseless and bogus accusations and insinuations in edits summaries or anywhere else on Wikipedia. I have said before I shall not change and using “a history” to further your point is absolutely the pettiest form of synthesis that can be undertaken which will always lead to the wrong conclusion. Over 99.9% of edits I have made have never had a word said against them and to imply anything other than the edits I make are constructive is bogus tripe. Take this as you will but I shall be commenting no further on how you want me to edit or conduct myself on Wikipedia.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the discussion as I have clearly stated why the annotations are confusing. It may not be to you but then you are only looking at from the POV of someone with Top Gear knowledge. Look at it for a moment from the POV of a total outsider with no Top Gear knowledge or someone with only knowledge of James Hewitt. I would also like to state that I reject each of you accusations as bogus and without basis particularly when you claim edit histories are " a perfect way" and "the only way" to assess a user, how about actually talking to the user and how about judging each edit on its merit. I think they are far better ways than your bogus impractical and derisory way.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

One more thing claiming edits made on 1 March, 23 July and 29 August all add up to a consensus is nonsense as they are too far apart tor be connected and all portray slightly different information. The time between each edit negates them being the consensus view point. If one hundred editors over 2 years add the word gay to the article of the Queen of England it doesn’t make to a concensus view point now does it (ignoring the fact it would be considered vandalism). That is mob rule and not consensus rule and Wikipedia is also not a democracy. --Lucy-marie (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Mob rule is where there is blind editing by a group of users who defend their edits and do not offer any compromise. You can clearly see I have offered compromise. Secondly I have no idea what you are talking about in relation to “Godwins Law”(which I have never head of). A brief reading of the article lead and it appears to refer to using the Nazis in analogies and also you are speaking in joke nonsense about "claiming five pounds" which I am at a loss over. I believe you have used that "Godwins Law" as a farcical distraction and have encountered the following "Godwin's law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons" (quoted from the article). As it has no relevance to my analogy. Finally you have also not offered any constructive points to base a useful discussion on. I have shown you to be full of bogus and nonsense statements which do little to advance a discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well of course the analogy needs to be farfetched as it proves just how nonsensical your point of argument had become. It also seems to have illustrated how bogus your points had become quite effectivly. Also this Godwins Law stuff is a farce.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)