User talk:86.16.117.32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. It is considered vandalism which, under Wikipedia guidelines, can lead to blocks being applied. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Fiddle Faddle 14:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slyfield

Are you sure there's an incinerator at Slyfield. I'm sure it's too small. As the previous comment refers to nonsense I'm going to revert it. SuzanneKn 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We all make mistakes - I even posted this on the wrong page - Oops

Hello,

Whoa, easy, gently, I think you should calm down, have a cup of tea, stroke the dog, or kick the cat. :-) I have zero interest in slyfield or you or your disputes. I was merely posting my first ever barnstar at the bottom of the page in recognition of months of exemplary effort by suzannekn and a conversation that had been ongoing for several days. The lack of extra === marks was no more than typographic oversight, or my artistic preference, and my wikipedic right. So in my case you jumped to a completely wrong conclusion and immediately started hurling insults. Not all the world revolves around you, sometimes we all make mistakes, I know I do. ... So I've made hundreds, you've made at least one, I think suzannekn is entitled to an occasional mistake as well.  :-)

The unique benefit of wiki is that it treats all 5 billion of us as mature adults, we are all equally empowered, but this responsibility works best when everybody is calm, polite, thinks, counts to 10, and then edits exactly what they want anyway. Some things are worth getting hot about, but refused planning permission 100 miles away is pretty low on my priority list, it's below war, ecology, death, taxes, warm cuddly animals and the latest 'plot line' in Baywatch. :-)

Regards, Autodidactyl 18:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not going to get dragged into your row, but the benefit of wiki is that you don't have to get dragged in either. Just fix it. Don't worry about SuzanneKn and her reasoning, just fix it. When it happens to me I don't revert it, I try to rewrite, because maybe it will work better when worded differently. (or maybe the original 'reverter' will not notice that I have slipped it back in.) My protocol is plagiarise or write it, rewrite it, reword it, resequence it, then talk about it. I have read the para several times now, although it almost sends me to sleep. Personally, I would not embrace two concepts about two places with changing chronology and status in a single para. I would use a landfill para, an incinerator para, and a planning permission para. I am confused because I get the impression that your editorial comments concur with the original text but are at odds with your revised text, that's why only you and SuzannKn can know.

Please remember,

One man's forthright is another man's shouting. - Telling me what to do in Block Capitals comes across as a bit too strong.

One man's wit is another man's sarcasm. Making withering comments about my award of a barnstar to a third party comes across as pointlessly offensive in an area which doesn't concern you.

Happy editing Autodidactyl 20:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I do apologise if I upset you but it is unnecessary to be rude. This is what was pasted on the tag next to the revision you did: Slyfield is a landfill. The proposed incinerator was refused planning permission. I assumed that you had written this line and it linked with your revision. As we both know, Slyfield is not a landfill. Why there was this tag line I do not know, however, I acted in good faith. Perhaps you are new to wikipedia, but it is important to be polite. SuzanneKn 22:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../8/6/2E/User_talk%7E86.16.117.32.html"