Jump to content

User talk:Abtract: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
AnmaFinotera (talk | contribs)
→‎RfC/User Two: new section
AnmaFinotera (talk | contribs)
Warning: Potentially violating the three revert rule on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. using TW
Line 213: Line 213:


Hello, [[User:Abtract|Abtract]]. Please be aware that a [[WP:RFC|request for comments]] has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in [[WP:RFC/USER|this list]], and the actual discussion can be found at [[{{ns:4}}:Requests for comment/{{ucfirst:Abtract}}{{highrfc-loop|page={{ns:4}}:Requests for comment|username={{ucfirst:Abtract}}|number=zzzz}}]], where you may want to participate. -- -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 12pt; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, [[User:Abtract|Abtract]]. Please be aware that a [[WP:RFC|request for comments]] has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in [[WP:RFC/USER|this list]], and the actual discussion can be found at [[{{ns:4}}:Requests for comment/{{ucfirst:Abtract}}{{highrfc-loop|page={{ns:4}}:Requests for comment|username={{ucfirst:Abtract}}|number=zzzz}}]], where you may want to participate. -- -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 12pt; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]{{#if:Wikipedia:Reliable sources|&#32; according to the reverts you have made on [[:Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. If necessary, pursue [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''Stop this, and stop it now. Not only are you acting childishly, but your deliberate attempt to goad me into an edit war only reflects badly on you. '' -- [[::User:Collectonian|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; font-size: 12pt; color:#5342F'>Collectonian</span>]]&nbsp;([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:15, 21 May 2008

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

  • /archive 1 1 May - 31 October 2006
  • /archive 2 1 November 2006 - 30 April 2007
  • /archive 3 1 May - 31 October 2007 (includes the time I was blocked for overenthusiasm)
  • /archive 4 1 November 2007 - 30 April 2008 (includes my paranoia phase)

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Abtract! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

Kukini 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have retained this warm and useful welcome because it really did work. Abtract (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hp. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You seem to have a very bad tendency to edit war rather than actually discuss your disagreements with other editors. From what I've seen, so far you have violated 3RR on no less than four articles in 24 hours. You have managed to avoid a block so far, though how I do not know. You need to realize, however, that 3RR does not give you fair game to do 4 reverts and stop. If you continue reverting and warring in this manner, it is very likely you will be reported to AN/I or RFCU for administrative attention. Additionally, again I remind you to watch your choice of words in your edit summaries. Insults against other editors there are considered violations WP:CIVILITY. Collectonian (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for stopping by. I have "avoided a block" because I have not reverted a page more than 3 times in 24 hours. My "tendency to edit war" is of course (at least) matched by USer:JHunterJ (an admin no less) and User:Sesshomaru who persists in following me around so that he can revert me whenever possible. I assume you have warned them also? I admit that some of my edit summaries leave a little to be desired and I am working on that. Unless you can be more specific about my "violations", that's all I have to say. Abtract (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you've avoided a block because kind editors keep giving you a WP:3RR warning instead of just reporting you for edit warring. If you'll read up on edit wars, you'll see that WP:3RR states Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks.
To sum up, an edit war doesn't need to violate WP:3RR to result in a block. Your actions, reverts, and edit summaries have been disruptive, and your page has seen plenty of warnings from editors trying to get you to behave civilly. Please do so. Redrocket (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you again have you warned JHJ and Sess? Abtract (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. I'll look into it, but I know you've been warned before. As you are well aware, the conduct of other users does not give you the right to edit war and be uncivil. Redrocket (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find that JHJ was the first to revert me and has matched me since then ... and he is an admin!. You will also find that Sess had admitted to following me around (I call it stalking) and changing my edits when he can. You will also find that I have made peaceful overtures to Sess on three occasions and been rebuffed on each occasion. The particulart events you are (I assume since you have not been specific) referring to concern HP (disambiguation) and related pages where JHJ was the first to revert without justification (still none forthcoming). You have not warned JHJ, I wonder why not? Now unless you have some specific charge to bring, thanks for stopping by and goodbye. Abtract (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not bringing a charge, I'm summing up the 5+ warnings that you've received in the last day and telling you that your conduct is not civil, not productive, and is being disruptive. I understand we've had this conversation before [1], and you chose to ignore it. I'm just trying to get you to understand that regardless of the conduct of any other editor, you are responsible for your own content. Redrocket (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re User:Sesshomaru and past discussion

There is as yet no agreement to proceed toward arbitration, mediation, or other remedy, but it is too early to say that the process is dead. It seems that there are other parties involved in editing disputes that include Sesshomaru, and that they seem to be of the same opinion. Notwithstanding that they include an admin I am still prepared to act on all parties behalf to try and resolve this matter without anyone being restricted in their editing unless on a voluntary basis. I have dealt with Sesshomaru previously, and like to think I may have some influence in having a viewpoint heard if I am the messenger. This is the facility I am offering for you to use. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be quite happy for you to do this. Thanks for the offer. Abtract (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alouette(s)

If you have a chance, combine Alouette and Alouettes into one page. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea I have done it. For another time it's easy enough (imho) provided there is no talk on the talkpage of the one being redirected. Abtract (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hp Horsepower

Would you add the {{editprotected}} to Talk:HP (disambiguation) asking that the "HP or hp is horsepower" edit be unreverted? The protecting admin suggested I not make the change, and if you add the editprotected request it may help prove that there's consensus for it. Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bitch of a warning

With regard to your comments on User talk:Abtract: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry what's your point? Abtract (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop making uncivil comments against other editors, even if you disagree with them. I have held off on further action in the hopes that you would take the advice of the several people trying to help you and change your behavior regarding edit warring and violating WP:CIVILITY (which is a policy) and WP:AGF (a guideline based on that policy). You seem to genuinely want to be a good contributer to Wikipedia, however continuing to insult others and edit warring will result in sanctions being taken against you, such as blocks. I urge you to please read those pages carefully, as well as WP:3RR, and take them, and the good advice I and others have given you to avoid further issues.Collectonian (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, yes, so you said but what spurred you on to make this point now? Abtract (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edit summary when you moved a comment. While technically accurate, it read badly. Collectonian (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sorry you will have to be more specific, I make lots of edits. :) Abtract (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[2] this one. Collectonian (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems quite innocuous to me; what's your point? Abtract (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can be misinterpreted, particular with the recent incivility issues, so just saying to consider the way you word things in the future, especially when dealing with an article like that. Collectonian (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What can be misinterpreted and by whom? Abtract (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By anyone who doesn't check your contributes to see you meant literally that you were moving it to Talk:Bitch rather than implying the person was just "bitching" and you were removing it. Collectonian (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have more faith in "anyone checking my contributions" than you do. Just out of interest why are you checking my contributions? And why do you feel it necessary to warn me in such stentorian tones for using the name of an article in an edit summary ... a summary which I am sure the editor actually concerned with the exchange understood and found helpful. Thanks for stopping by, but I really do think you could be more usefully employed than threatening me. Abtract (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You came to my attention through your regular edit warring. As others already told you, when you act disruptively, people will start watching you. I am not threatening you, I'm attempting to help you, but you continue to respond to all attempts to help you avoid being blocked with sarcasm and a brush off. Collectonian (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "help" was offered in a very peculiar way ... and completely off-beam. Being critical of me using the word "bitch" in an edit summary concerning the page Bitch (actually I meant Bitch (disambiguation) but that's neither here nor there) is so ludicrous that I can't think why you haven't apologise a long way up this thread. I can only presume that you didn't look into what was going on thoroughly, and you just leapt straight in to threaten me ( because you were indeed threatening me) and now you don't know how to get out of the situation with honour intact. Well, just put it down to experience, we all make mistakes. Thanks again for trying to help. :) Abtract (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Examples aplenty

See, the above conversation is a good example of what I tried to warn you was going to happen. When you get a couple of warnings and a block under your belt, you attract editors who assume you're going to continue your pattern of behavior and find it hard to assume good faith from you any longer.

I've looked at your contributions, you can be quite an asset to wikipedia. You've worked on some articles and disambig pages that not a lot of other people thought to touch, and that's great. It's the things in between that are causing problems and those problems have led to your actions being under the microscope.

As I have done before, I'd like to ask you to just be more thoughtful in your comments to other editors and edit summaries. It's the little things that sometimes get blown up, so please be mindful of that. As of this moment, I have no beef with you and I wish you well here on wikipedia. I'd like to see you stay and continue to be productive and civil. If I can be of help to you in the future, just drop me a line. Redrocket (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I might do that. As to the above conversation, it has a very understandable beginning ... an editor wanting to make a point with me thinks I have transgressed because she didn't look beyond the word "bitch". However, imho, once she discovered her error she should have at the very least gone away (I didn't really expect an apology) but she didn't, she kept on and on despite the fact that by now she knows that I had made a very normal ordinary edit summary. I admit I teased her a little because obviously I knew from the start what she had in mind but I simply couldn't believe how long she continued without admitting that my edit summary was useful and nothing more. I have only been uncivil to one editor, under provocation, and not for some time. We all "edit war" occasionally when we are convinced we are right (no excuse I know) and I am addressing that (albeit slowly). Thanks for stopping by and for the offer. :) Abtract (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what, anything that's happened up to right now, just forget about. Start clean, and leave all the old conflicts behind you. Make an effort to not get involved in any of this, and you'll have a lot more time to edit the wiki (or better yet, do something productive in real life). It's just easier that way. Good luck! Redrocket (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am very happy to do that, indeed I do it everyday until silly threats come my way. ... I especially like the real life bit. I made much that appeal to Sess but sadly my offer was spurned. I am learning though. Thanks again. Abtract (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Abtract)

Hello, Abtract. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AbtractTemplate:Highrfc-loop]], where you may want to participate. -- Collectonian (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information; I shall watch with interest. Abtract (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have disappeared, what happened? Abtract (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't make the 2 user contact threshold, and became defunct. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users. I didn't see the RFC before it went to redspace, but I am guessing due process wasn't followed with you before it was posted. aliasd·U·T 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due process was followed. It was certified by a someone not even involved, but that doesn't count for the process. Of those who were involved, two decided not to certify to give Abtract yet another chance to prove he really is going to change like he keeps promising, and the third was off-line and didn't come back online until it was too late. Collectonian (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you interpreted my guess based on the edit summaries/delete summaries as to what happened as an assumption of bad faith, it wasn't that way really. aliasd·U·T 08:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful info User:aliasd and thanks for your interesting comments User:Collectonian. Abtract (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of Kari

Just a couple of questions... Firstly, this is a longish list that was broken up into subject areas, why did you decide to place it all together into one mass? Secondly, why did you remove the reference to Tari, Papua New Guinea? Your edit seemed in my opinion to take the page further away from WP:MOSDB. Sorry if I seem to have a blunt tone here, just think you could have fixed this one up with far less work really. aliasd·U·T 22:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your two questions. I removed Tari because it is not Kari. I also removed the people and put them on a seperate page Kari (given name) so the list at Kari became much shorter and imho no sections are needed. As you can see no other editor has seen it necessary to insert headers which the manual of style only recomends for longer lists. If you are not happy with this, by all means take it to the talk page and get other views than mine. Abtract (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I doubt the talk page there will get much attention. Disambig talk pages hardly do :) I would like to see the list separated at least to put the related stuff together (such as the geo articles). I feel information is now more difficult to access the way it currently is. I believe in general a disambig page should take no more than 3 seconds for an average reader to navigate through. Also, Tari is Kari, the names are synonymous, the town is referred to by both names. Would you have a problem with this? I can make the edits myself. aliasd·U·T 21:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with headings on short lists, they just get in the way imho. As to Kari/Tari I see there is no citation for the name variants nor indeed for the article as a whole ... I won't fight you over putting it back in but you should mention that is is also known as Kari to justify its insersion. hope that helps. Abtract (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAU has a new format

Due to popular demand, HAU has a new look. Since the changes are so dramatic, I may have made some mistakes when translating the data. Please take a look at WP:HAU/EU and make sure your checkmarks are in the right place and feel free to add or remove some. There is a new feature, SoxBot V, a recently approved bot, automatically updates your online/offline status based on the length of time since your last edit. To allow SoxBot V to do this, you'll need to copy [[Category:Wikipedians who use StatusBot]] to your userpage. Obviously you are not required to add this to your userpage, however, without this, your status will always be "offline" at HAU. Thanks. Useight (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic at Bravo

Since there seems to be some disagreement as to whether there is a primary topic at the disambiguation page Bravo, I've started up the discussion Talk:Bravo#Primary_topic so that we can resolve it without edit warring; your input would be much appreciated there. -- Natalya 16:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Au

{{help}}. I have a problem on Au where User:Bkonrad is persisting in an edit which runs completely counter to mos:dab (imho). I have given rationale for my suggested "gold" line (on the talk page) but they have not engaged in discussion, simply making rather inappropriate edit summaries. I would appreciate assistance in support of my reasoning or to tell me I am wrong ... I will accept either. It might be useful if helping editors have some knowledge of disambiguation pages. Thanks :) Abtract (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note advising talk page discussion. I suggest not reverting for a while to see whether he's willing to discuss it.--chaser - t 20:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do ... or rather will not do. Abtract (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful comment disguised as a "welcome"

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in YuYu Hakusho, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

More warnings

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on YuYu Hakusho. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Please stop being so disruptive on this article. It already has a general tag and your addition of a bunch of fact tags is unnecessary and appears to only be retalitory in nature. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Additionally, your falsely labeling your undoing as "rv vandalism" is a violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:CIVILITY. I'm not going to bother giving you a second templated warning for using a false edit summary, but please be aware that deliberately making a false accusation of vandalism is not appropriate at all. You know very well that it was not vandalism. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
In addition, please do not call contributions by good faith users "vandalism", as you did here. Read WP:ASSUME, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interest but actually it was vandalism by an editor who should (and does) know better. I am quite entitled to place fact tags wherever there is unreferenced content ... indeed I would be quite entitled to remove such content as your buddy admitted only moments before wiping my entire edit. If you or they disagreed with my placement of these tags then the mannerly thing to do would have been to mention this on the article talk page not to revert blindly and attack me (even though it was thinly disguised as a "welcome") on my talk page. Abtract (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly in the wrong here. Take a deep breath, and drop it. Doceirias (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how and I probably will. Abtract (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 00:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will assume good faith and warn you concerning your violation of the three revert rule reported at the noticeboard. Please note that other users are objecting to your disruptive use of citation tags, not every single little sentence needs to be cited. In my view they are correct in that view and your re-adding of the tags was inappropriate. The article is clearly tagged at the top and until that has been dealt with individual requests for citations were not appropriate.--Matilda talk 01:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Abtract (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/User Two

Hello, Abtract. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AbtractTemplate:Highrfc-loop]], where you may want to participate. -- -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stop this, and stop it now. Not only are you acting childishly, but your deliberate attempt to goad me into an edit war only reflects badly on you. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)