User talk:Mcormc

Threatening post by Chuck Entz
Since you don't seem to know the rules, I thought you should have access to an explanation of how things are done around here, rather than just blocking you. Pay particular attention to our Criteria For Inclusion (WT:CFI): we're a descriptive dictionary, so we have entries for everything that's in actual use (and this is in actual use)- even if it's wrong. We don't say something "isn't a word" if people use it. We may mark it as "non-standard" if most speakers would recognize it as wrong, "proscribed" if some authoritative source says it's wrong or if it would be disapproved of in some types of use, or a misspelling if that's what it is.

What makes sense doesn't always end up being accepted in the language. Look at pea for instance. The word used to be pease, with the correct plural being peasen, but people reinterpreted pease as the plural of the previously non-existent word pea. hundreds of years later, no one has heard of pease, except as an unfamiliar word in a nursery rhyme ("Pease porridge hot, pease porridge cold", etc.).

In this case, the usage note explains why the form should be treated as suspect, so you don't need to editorialize (and if you insist on continuing to do so, you probably will be blocked, after all). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Mcormc's reply to threatening post
I hope we can figure this out without more drama on our user pages...

Who are you to italicize "will" in your threatening post on my page?

"You don't need to editorialize (and if you insist on continuing to do so, you probably will be blocked, after all)," you write.

What's up with that aggressive claptrap, guy? I never "editorialized" anything on any Wiki property. In regard to your irrelevant example, pea, pease and peasen—unlike "crostinis"—are defined in many credible dictionaries.

I'd consider any credible definition of "crostinis" sufficient. Is that too much to ask for?

You're right: I "don't seem to know the rules" around here. What I did: I removed a word that in fact..."isn't a word."

You want me out? Save me the trouble of learning the rules by pulling the trigger, bud.

&#0151;Mcormc (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What a joke. He was giving you a warning; how else could he put it? He wasn’t demanding you to do rubbish like other editors do, he wasn’t being accusative, annoying or insulting (prove me wrong, if you wish). It’s just common knowledge: if somebody repeats destructive behaviour, he will be blocked. --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I won't continue or, more aggressively, "insist on continuing" to make a mockery of Wiki. That's a scolding by Chuck. What's your deal? Are you a bully, one of his buddies, too? Look at the guy's comment again and ask yourself: if that were the first post on my page, would its tone taste a bit sour? And for the record, his warning is not a threat, only "threatening."&#0151;Mcormc (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How would you suggest he say it instead? 02:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you see the italicized word? Why did he do that? Can you see how he starts his post? Why did he do that? Second person is a powerful thing, guy. Besides, that's only one example, which could've been friendlier, cleaner and neutral by toning it down to something like the following. "Users who editorialize entries will be blocked," or "if you editorialize content, you will be blocked," or, even with some opinion—"if you continue editorializing content, you will be blocked."&#0151;Mcormc (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mcormc, he did make a welcome. Come on… I mean, if D.P. were on your talk page I would understand, but I don’t consider Entz to be a scumbag. Entz is better at diplomacy. So… would you like to calm down? --Æ&#38;Œ (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm getting there, but still quite new here. I'd expected a more welcoming welcome, that's all. The additional insight caught me by surprise.&#0151;Mcormc (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)