User talk:172.166.34.87

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of Wassermann.
Please refer to editing habits and/or contributions; this policy subsection may also be helpful.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs

I've replied to your message on my talk page. — Sam 22:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


If all you're going to do is ignore others' thoughts then there is no point in our collaboration. You've already been blocked permanently. How about reflecting on why you were blocked instead of jumping to the conclusion that all admins are censors out to get you. I'm fed up with this "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. Discuss and be open to other opinions or I will resign from any involvement in these petty disputes of yours. — Sam 23:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been discussing this on the various talk pages (please see Talk:List of astrological traditions), and I'll be responding on your talk page here in a few minutes. Just trying to organize things around here, that's all. Please remember WP:OWN Samuella. --172.166.34.87 23:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't accuse me of article ownership when you're the one chronically dictating your own views and arbitrary decisions without a proper discussion. I'm tired, I've got things to do in the real world, and having to explain everything I do to you because you have to find something wrong with it is extremely irritating and exhausting. I'd rather not even be here if every edit of mine is going to be nitpicked by someone who quite frankly has a history of poor decisions. And that's not a personal statement, it's a conclusion made from your contentious edits on all articles, not just the astrology ones. Take a look at the Wassermann talk page and you will see what I mean. — Sam 23:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid ad hominem attacks (see WP:NPA), and please see WP:BOLD in regards to the contentious edits. I think that by following WP:BOLD I have made very substantial improvements in all corners of Wikipedia, especially when it comes to the overall organization of many categories and lists. I'm not here to quarrel, just to improve upon and build the encyclopedia. If you are tired and have other things to do, take a break. Like I said, I'll respond on your talk page in a little while about the issues in the main astrology category (perhaps we should move this discussion about these issues to that category's talk page?). In regards to this list of astrological traditions, please leave all responses on the talk page of that list. Thank you. --172.166.34.87 23:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Being bold is one thing. Chronically ignoring consensus, Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and other editors' views is another. I'm not debating your good intentions or your beneficial edits. I am however strongly suggesting you get with the program here and recognize what you're doing. You didn't get blocked for nothing. It makes me seriously question your competency when you go on an edit spree recategorizing topics in ways that blatantly go against what Wikipedia:Categorization suggests. Three people so far agree with me that astrological factors is a bad idea. Four against one. Think about that. — Sam 18:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Make that five against one now. — Sam 21:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)