User talk:Yskyflyer/Past Conflict

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Past Conflict's I Have had. For great justice Conflict. If I change an Edit i made after the fact i will re sign it again such as Text--~~~~Revised--~~~~

The Page history for this Archive is here

Contents 1 For great justice. 1.1 reverts 1.2 WTF? 1.3 help me 1.4 Post Archived 1.4.1 Inappropriate Comments 1.4.2 End comment

[edit] For great justice.

[edit] reverts

Sorry you felt the need to revert, perhaps you could be more specific about what you didn't like - I just felt that a lot of it was really not good, like requiring a street to be internationally famous? Where does that requirement come from? For great justice. 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I really didn't change it to reflect my views, I changed it reflect wikipedia policy. Which bits do you think don't reflect policy? For great justice. 02:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

Please stop your harrassment. For great justice. 18:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove my coments it is talk page vandalism[1]. Further more I said i think you are a Troll Not A Troll becose Everybody dissagreess with you on one page but you keep musling your opinoun in when it is Guidline page that requires Consensis.

Don't Apreviat your Curses. You are alowed to say "What the Fuck" or "Why Did you do that" But you are not allwed to say "What the @^$@" It will take me a while to locate the Policy but it does exist--E-Bod 18:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ps you are allowed to ask me to remove my coments thou and i usually will reword what i have to say if you ask nily. Please repond why you are not a Troll, but don't Delete my coment. Peple should see that somebody unjustly called you a Trole and that you were able to defend youself. I gave clear links to what you did wrong and you are adressin non of them. You do not consider anyging anybody else says. I clerly link to all policys you want me to linck to and you just say i din't link to the polcy instead of addresing the problem

Sorry for calling you a Troll. But let me delete my comments myself I ree adddid what i had to say without calling you a troll--E-Bod 19:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ps If you have read my talk page you would have found out that i have made some bad acuzation before but then removed them into a more aceptiple sugestion--E-Bod 19:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I should have said "You seem to be making statements/Changes just to provoke people" WP:NPA#Examples_that_are_not_personal_attacks--E-Bod 20:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I revised my edits a third time now tell me if you still object to it now [2]--E-Bod 18:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have finally given up trying to resolve my problems with "For great justice". He/She Has Repeatedly Deleated and refused to reply to any critical coment i make of his/her talk page without archiving it. While I no longer care about the initial problem with the page He/She has edited for others are debating that article, I cannot understand how [3]

can be called (removing irrelevant harrassment). I do not object to the first thing justice removed becose it had bad language (just like this post of "WTF" i don't see how the untaged inmage notice and my Template warning of removing warnings (Ironikly removed))I cannot understand how He/She could revert what i wrote on the talk page about him/her 3 times without one resonce other than --E-Bod 04:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; obscene words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols" Wikipedia:Profanity The Guidline i was refering to earlier--E-Bod 21:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note this user's history of Conflict before and after my comment.[4] And this user calld my comment a personal attack.--E-Bod 23:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok I comented again on this user's talk page becose i noticed he/she reverted another warning so i thought i'd just let the people on the page know about the prior Problems this user had. It was Wrong on my part and i Opoligized. The Opoligy was also reverted [5]. I Guess my Problem is I never felt the Problem was ever resolved becose all mycoments on that talk page were Deleted without a response. It was Wrong of me To coment on that page again. It's Just against Policy to pretend the conflict never happened.

[edit] help me

I am having Probems with User_talk:For_great_justice.. Please coment On my Actions and What i should do. (I am Asking for people other than For great justice)

I'll take a look. Henrik 18:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Without commenting on the issue itself, the best way to deal with problem users is to always remain calm and civil, and let them establish a pattern for breaking the rules. It takes some time, but Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Have a nice cup of tea in the meantime. Warning someone that they are engaging in bad behaviour is a good idea, but being civil and assuming good faith will let you keep a clean record while allowing others to easier understand the situation. Calling someone a troll is unlikely to improve the situation. Henrik 19:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi E-Bod. Thanks for your message. My comment would be roughly the same as Henrik - remain calm, disengage from the user in question and move on to something else.

If the user is indulging in personal attacks and removing warnings from his/her user page, then it will soon become clear that they are not contributing constructively to Wikipedia and action will be taken against them. You do not need to provoke them into action; they will get themselves into trouble.

The user in question has been warned twice now for making personal attacks, so is likely to be temporarily blocked from editing if s/he makes a third attack. If that happens, there would be a good case for mediation between the user and the people s/he is squabbling with. Failing that, an Request for Comment could be set up.

But that is in the future. For now, have a nice cup of tea and move on to something else with less stress involved. Things will work themselves out given time. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks--E-Bod 21:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the two pages From my watchlist that keep brining me back to this issue. I's That I keep woring sombody will reply to my post and it will look wierd if i don't respond--E-Bod 21:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I don't Know why but it makes more sence when 2 people tell me--E-Bod 17:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post Archived

This User has Repeatedly removed all negative comments I make from his/her user page so I find I Appropriate to Finlay archive this off my user page. Also leaving it on my user page compels me to make a comment on his/her user page and then he/she says my comment is bringing up an old issue.--E-Bod 02:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC) spelling--E-Bod 04:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for he heck of it i decided to return to his/her talk page to see if this same conflict came up again. lo and behold

Copied form User talk:For great justice.--E-Bod 04:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate Comments

Your comments on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Always Postpone Meetings with Time-Wasting Morons page are inappropriate. Wikipedia is a collaborative and cooperative endeavour, not a sporting competition. HistoryBA 23:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End comment

My issue with this user confusing Verifiability with notability and then arguing to the bare bone will never end. No matter who is involved.--E-Bod 04:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)