User talk:CodName Lisa

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Materialscientist (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Blasphemy or Routine Incivility
I am curious. Did you mean | this edit summary to be blasphemous of a diety you believe in or just uncivil towards those who believe in a diety? CodName Lisa (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

NFCC and WP:POTKETTLE
why should anyone give you any leeway on a NFCC violation for a test case when you have never given anyone else any for much more legitimate reasons? If you need something to test with, try spending 5 minutes in MS Paint before risking harm to the encyclopedia and being uncivil towards your fellow editors who are trying to protect it. You can count on this edit coming up in discussion the next time that you unjustifiably badger someone else about NFCC.

Best Regards, CodName Lisa (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Assumption of bad faith and attributions of hatred
Why do you continue to assume bad faith in your fellow editors has you have done in this edit? Surely the image size is a matter of opinion which does not require hatred. CodName Lisa (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Condescending mode of speech
I have some bad news for you. English does not have a condescending mode of speech. Let's take the first sentence of this message as an example. If you do not assume bad faith and remove our history from the equation, there is nothing condescending in the sentence. It could be that I am attempting to soften the blow as a preface to telling you that you are wrong in an opinion which you have vigorously promoted and attempted to use as a defense of your past personal attacks on others. Feel free to prove me wrong and show sources which support your presumption that English does have a condescending mode of speech that does not require an assumption of bad faith or additional knowledge of the speaker's motives. If you are able to successfully do so, I will accept that I am incorrect and stop commenting on your offensive treatment of your fellow editors. Otherwise, I am afraid that your false claims only serve to further prove your ignorance and combative attitude towards others. CodName Lisa (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)