User:Antidiskriminator/Useful frequently needed English frazes

If a quality editor puts a tag on one of my articles I will try my hardest to take away the reason for their discontent.
Taci, maledetto lupo: Consuma dentro te con la tua rabbia.
Oh will you stop trying to mislead already?! Is bold-faced deception all you've got on this? Could you once try to frame this issue in honest terms? heavily involved and biased party you were the one proposing changes, and "there absolutely was no talk page consensus"... but hey.. maybe if you can ban some people - you might get that to change. Neat idea. Regardless of whether your "policy-based" arguments are such or not (and they're not) - they had no consensus. Moreover, the entire mess on this thread is entirely of your own making, so don't try to blame me somehow. It was your decision to pester the community repeatedly for assistance in pushing changes you prefer, and that is absolutely what this is about: you're a participant in a content dispute, pushing for a ban against a party you disagree with. There is no concrete evidence, there isn't even a coherent argument for OWN or anything of the sort, there's just this vague whiiiine about how you're personally frustrated and don't want to "deal" and all that.. "oh please make him go away", etc.
Allow me to direct your attention to the very helpful subsection .... It matches what we're seeing here almost to the letter.
blocks/bans are protective measure, not punishment
You do not have the right to be insulting or incivil to anyone, even someone who is, or who you may suspect of being a .......
Also, request that an exerpienced admin close the discussion, somebody who is familiar with these sorts of ethnic battlezones who would not so easily be confused to say "no consensus" when there is a clear consensus among reasonable editors being disrupted by a few loud, bad actors.
Welcome to (page xyz), User _____, and thanks for the benefit of your opinion. I've considered it and I remain firmly of the view that _______________. You are of course at liberty to differ.
A provocation disguised as an (irrelevant) question, intended to imply .... bias. The kind you used to ask me as well. I must say, it doesn't take very long to discern these sort of rhetorical habits.
source is an ICTY transcript of the interrogation ..., not a secondary source discussing the topic of ....
Inclusion requires reliable sources and consensus.
As an outsider that has not dug in to the whole problem yet, I must say I dont like User:xyz language at all. I suggest you start being polite and write with a friendly tone. It is better for everyone, because it is more civil to read, and people may judge you differently if you use another language. I dont feel like the choice of words is good etiguette, so at least consider reading WP:ETIQ - diff
P.S.: We are talking about the sources on articles talk page, so please leave this conversation free of article content subject, so we don´t unecessarily double the same conversation.
Here administrator Sandstein mentioned me on the AE page.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Here I was mentioned at ANI in context of patience.
Your judgment in this matter is not sufficient, you need consensus. Please do not revert my undoing of your edits until you have that consensus.
Fps said:WP:BOLD applies. If you object to something, the onus of initiating discussion is on you. Name specific points you disagree with, not blanket assertions of overall bias.
[transl.: 'On November 16 (i.e. Gregorian November 29) the army units arrived in Durrës, where they were welcomed warmly by the Christian population. They immediately began to organize our police authorities (the county of Durrës, a city major, a president of the town and commander of the military station) and then set up further fortification of Durrës.'] this is how FPS formated translation in the referenced source.
It is as wrong for one editor to refuse to allow content from another contributor as it is wrong for a contributor to insist that their content is included; consensus must prevail.
I think I gave a fairly clear reason for my closing in the closing statement, and I don't really have much to add to that now. You are of course free to disagree, but I don't think you should expect everybody to be now somehow obliged to keep discussing this with you for as long as you are dissatisfied with it.
You have just made this up to put me on the back foot.
The topic (ie. diacritics in personal names) could probably use a widely-advertised RfC. The problem with MOS talk page discussions like that is that a few people with strong opinions end up aguing among themselves and generate huge walls of text that will drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion.In ictu oculi, you should try to make sure to focus on the content of comments instead of the person making them. Using speculations of a user's language skills to question their competence is not very productive and the discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue.
There is so much nonsense in this paragraph, as well as such a total disconnect from reality, that I cannot be bothered responding to it.
All known methods of dispute resolution on Wikipedia rely on a combination of two factors: (a) a minimum degree of common ground and shared commitment to the values of the project between the parties involved, and/or (b) availability of clueful outside opinion to break any impasses. When neither of the two factors are given, as was the case here, conventional dispute resolution necessarily fails.
I also note that the request mentions comments deemed WP:OR on article talk pages. I think WP:Original Research policy applies to article space. Explnations on talk pages often involve in-depth argument, which can often be considered original research.
Don't "warn" people you'll take things to ANI, that's simply pointless threatening, and is unlikely to lead to collegiate or positive results. You try sincerely to work things out, and if that fails you seek help, via ANI or another appropriate venue, but you don't threaten people with ANI. That shows a battleground mentality and casts doubts on your desire to actually work things out, as it reads as "my way or I'm telling!" Your behavior here has been less than exemplary. Be done with your hostile behavior, and try to AGF and work with your fellow editors.
There are no policies on notability. There are guidelines and opinions. A puppet government is still effectively a national government. We use common sense here, not unswerving dogma.
This creates a very toxic editing environment that does not encourage and welcome participation.
Malicious motivations" is a strong allegation, there has to be serious evidence in the form on objective diffs, .... ought to come up with it or withdraw it. As an admin since he has powers of "live and death", he ought to refrain from making such allegations.
Unless you were undoing blatant vandalism there is never an excuse for edit warring. Nobody is in the right in an edit war, anyone who participates in one is in the wrong.
I have a hard time believing that PUBLISHER XYZ would publish a ___________ as a chapter title and as a technical term for ________ used regularly throughout the book.
If you want to cite WP:..... then you need to provide sources that back up your position. To date, your argument is that "all the sources are wrong and I'm right because I say so, so we shouldn't give the RS any weight." Show me a neutral source which says "....." and then we can talk about WP:..... However, your personal opinion is not enough to veto what all the RS say on the subject.
you're not making a good faith effort to try to find a mutually acceptable compromise, but rather are disruptively [[WP:Stonewalling]] the discussion.
There is no way that "If you are having difficulty understanding..." could be considered civil and his response was in kind.
if your abusive behaviour continues I will refer you to the administators' noticeboard. Remember that you were blocked last time for your abusive behaviour. Please see Wikipedia:Civility." That comment starts off complaining about the tone of his comments and then goes on to attack him as a person. One step forwards, two steps back....You ask why linking to a policy is uncivil, well, ...It's basically saying "you are wrong in your behaviour, but you aren't worth my time to explain what you're doing wrong", and quite simply, it's rude. You're not the only person to behave that way on Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it less rude.
Editors who make many similar edits, contrary to clear advice that these edits are controversial or incorrect, must pursue discussion and dispute resolution. Repetitive or voluminous edit patterns—which present opponents with a fait accompli and exhaust their ability to contest the change, or defy a reasonable decision arrived at by consensus—are disruptive.
I dislike enforcing formalisms, but I like reading rants when trying to come to a conclusion even less. Please move your comment to the appropriate section, or better yet, reconsider it entirely. You have said your piece, and then you said it again. Continued repetition suggests that you are interested in [[WP:BATTLE|engaging in battles on Wikipedia]] instead of writing about them. If you believe that there is new, actionable evidence of misconduct we have missed, kindly list and link such items
I am not going to explain to you why "liberated" cannot be used. You'll have to find that out for yourself. And no, the fact that Croatia won the war and finally got its independence recognized does not justify stamping parties in this war "aggressors" and "liberators". If you cannot stop thinking of these events in these terms, this project is not for you.
why is that supposed to be my responsibility
Have you ever disagreed with somebody without accusing them of having a sinister agenda?
Све што је битно у мом тексту г. ............ је једноставно игнорисао. Мудра му је та тактика игнорисања хриди на које би се насукао.