User talk:Abtract

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 Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Kukini 22:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

I ask you again have you warned JHJ and Sess? Abtract (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Alouette(s)

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

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)

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)

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)

Sorry what's your point? Abtract (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

yes, yes, so you said but what spurred you on to make this point now? Abtract (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit summary when you moved a comment. While technically accurate, it read badly. Collectonian (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you will have to be more specific, I make lots of edits. :) Abtract (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[2] this one. Collectonian (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems quite innocuous to me; what's your point? Abtract (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

What can be misinterpreted and by whom? Abtract (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I must say that your approach to mos:dab has been uncollaborative and less than circumspect, but I have to agree you were framed here :) dab (𒁳) 13:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for the information; I shall watch with interest. Abtract (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have disappeared, what happened? Abtract (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks, will do ... or rather will not do. Abtract (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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 (talk • edits) 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

You're clearly in the wrong here. Take a deep breath, and drop it. Doceirias (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Explain how and I probably will. Abtract (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

I assumed good faith but your behaviour hasn't rewarded me. While technically not a 3RR I believe you are gaming the system --Matilda ^talk 01:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting ... What justification is there for blocking me for 3 reverts? And did you block User:Collectonian who actually made 4 reverts in a few hours? Abtract (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

1. I should have blocked you yesterday when I consider your past practice but gave you the benefit of the doubt - my assumption of good faith was not rewarded by your subsequent behaviour.
2. If you read the rule at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule you will see 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. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring regardless of whether they have explicitly violated the three-revert rule. Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances. I believe my actions for both you and the other user are in accordance with this rule. --Matilda ^talk 01:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't agree with you but thanks for the thoughtful reply. You clearly haven't taken into account the fact that User:Sesshomaru has spurned my apology twice (maybe even three times) and admitted to stalking me; and the fact that User:Collectonian first got involved with a rather sad and erroneous attack concerning the use of the word "bitch" in an edit summary of Bitch (disambiguation) ... I can only assume that they are both acting vindictively out of a sad desire not to admit to being wrong. No doubt that will earn me a longer block but it needs saying ... I just wish I had kept a better log of events. Thanks again. Abtract (talk)

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)

That's a bit rich coming from someone who has just reverted 4 times and is about to be reported for it. Abtract (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Report if you like. Administrators are not stupid and will recognize your retaliation for what it is. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Note

Please be mindful of the three-revert rule and refrain from behavior such as this. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ... a nice way of putting it. :) Abtract (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bitch (disambiguation). 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. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You never cease to amaze me ... it takes two to tango boy. Abtract (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, perhaps you can avoid the tango, and stop dancing together. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I would love to ... but as you know Sess rejected my apology, spurned my suggestion to split dab pages 2:1 in his favour, did not agree to arbitration, and (so far) has not agreed to JHJHunter's very helpful proposed way forward. What more can I do? Abtract (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Enough with the stalking

Since you've gone ahead and admitted to stalking, as well as it being blatantly obvious from your contributions, stop. You obviously have better things to do than annoy other editors. And to your comment of your "stalking" not being in line with policy, go read WP:HARASS, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL, all of which you're clearly violating as of now. If this continues, I will block you for violations of the aforementioned policies. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read those but can find no reason for your comments; could you enlarge please? Abtract (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

To put it simply, you're stalking User:Collectonian, User:Sesshomaru, among others. Stop. Simple as that. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you mean looking at their contributions in an attempt to correct the most obvious of their errors (a practice I learned from Sess and was assured was quite OK - when he did it!), I found it inherently unsatisfying so I don't do that anymore. Thanks for your interest. Abtract (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

MOS:DAB

[3] you keep following me around with allegations of "against MOS:DAB", but you completely fail to point out just what part of that guideline my edits are supposed to violate. I fully endorse everything on that page, and I must really ask you to be more specific instead of summarily reverting my edits, which are mostly in the spirit of MOS:DAB#Order_of_entries, placing the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below and MOS:DAB#Longer_lists, broken up by subject area. Now please, either be specific and state your issue clearly on the relevant talkpages, or stop reverting my edits. dab (𒁳) 12:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. You are well aware that wp is not a dictionary (let alone a Greek one) - to name but one of the problems with your recent edit - more on the talk page. Abtract (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Abtract. You have new messages at Nancy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re RFC

Re "I have no problem with you JHJ, even though we often disagree and you probably think I am a pedantic p..k (and I've had similar thoughts), so there is no need for any restrictions between us. Abtract (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)"

Glad to hear it. I find you agreeable to disagree with too. :-) Next time you're in the American Midwest, I'll buy you a beer, and I'll be happy to let you buy me one next time I'm in your neck of the UK. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, that's a promise. Abtract (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Final warning

You've said that you've stopped stalking, but apparently you haven't. Consider this your final warning. I'd highly recommend you recuse yourself from editing pages that they edit simply to avoid any problems. And if you do interact with them, your behavior needs changing. This for one is not civil. Just distance yourself from them and you can avoid any problems. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see any problem with the edit summary you quote. It was from my talk page and it was indeed an idiotic warning. Trigger happy Sess had warned me for removing a stupid warning from User:Dbachmann‎'s page - it was stupid because Dab clearly knew just what he was doing but in the heat of the moment saw no other way, wrong of course but enthusiastic editors tend to do it occasionally. To then warn me for removing it was sheer stupidity, but Sess simply cannot help giving an official warning whenever he can (check his 'warning log')... sorry but I stand by those words, which in any event are hardly the height of incivility. I am grateful that you are taking an interest but I would find it difficult to avoid them if they don't avoid me, and so far there is no sign that they feel inclined to agree with User:JHunterJ's eminently sensible solution to our problem [4] - indeed Sess has not even had the curtesy to comment on his proposal (and Coll's comment was dismissive to say the least), now there's incivility for you! Perhaps you would care to try to persuade them to consider and respond to it constructively rather than wasting time warning me about minor words used on my own talk page? ... if Sess invades my space he deserves all he gets. Abtract (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's uncivil. I don't care what your personal feelings are on the manner; you're expected to act in a civil manner regardless of them. You seem to simply want to be involved in edit conflicts merely to annoy them, and that is not acceptable. Also, you don't own anything here in terms of pages, even your user pages, and edit warring, personal attacks, and harassment are treated the same as in the mainspace. As you've continued past this final warning, I've issued a 31 hour block. I hope your behavior can improve in the future. There's no reason you can't simply distance yourself from them and simply not become involved with them, which would avoid any of these problems altogether. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And their part in this goes unpunished, unremarked upon, and with no attempt to get them to cooperate when I have apologised, suggested a solution and agreed with JHJ's proposal? You my fine friend should get out more if you think "idiotic warning" is uncivil. Abtract (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You've given them no reason to believe you will follow that proposal or act in any manner of good faith. You're stalking them through their contribution lists and edit warring with them for no other reason than to annoy them, which constitutes harassment. You've been told multiple times to avoid stalking them and edit warring, which you've clearly not learned from. That specific talk page comment was just an example of incivility; I'm blocking you because of your consistent harassment that continued after I issued the above warnings, not because of one edit summary. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have agreed to the proposal, they have not. When an agreement is in place I will follow it; what makes you think they will do the same when they can't even bring themselves to say so? 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Abtract (talk)

You speak as though I was the only one at fault here. Have you read the latest exchange on Meercat Manor and the talk page? Do you seriously think Coll is acting in a rationale manner or is she simply trying to defeat me? Have you read the "bitch" saga? If you have, who do you think was in the wrong there? Abtract (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Abtract (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

this is sheer stupidity ... I am criticised for an edit summary, on my talk page, that called a warning "idiotic" (pretty mild in my book); note I did not call the editor in question an idiot but just the edit itself.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=this is sheer stupidity ... I am criticised for an edit summary, on my talk page, that called a warning "idiotic" (pretty mild in my book); note I did not call the editor in question an idiot but just the edit itself. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=this is sheer stupidity ... I am criticised for an edit summary, on my talk page, that called a warning "idiotic" (pretty mild in my book); note I did not call the editor in question an idiot but just the edit itself. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=this is sheer stupidity ... I am criticised for an edit summary, on my talk page, that called a warning "idiotic" (pretty mild in my book); note I did not call the editor in question an idiot but just the edit itself. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Abtract (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Abstract, i have been fairly quiet in this, as I thought that others were going to eventually get through to you. I've decided to comment because I am noticing a pattern with your reasoning that I sometimes have myself. In a great many instances, you are adopting a 'well-they-do-it-so-why-can't-I' attitude in relation to your edits and demeanor, and I think that this adoption is not doing you any favors. You are probably thinking that because they are seemingly "getting away" with "stalking" your edits and not giving you all the Good Faith, that turnabout is fair play.

You need to understand that this is precisely the wrong attitude to internalize, and understand that it is by adopting this that you are straying away from your own comfort zone of editing style and ending up in trouble. By suggesting that you are justified in stalking another's edits because another editor watches yours (the claim about Sess doing that immediately comes to mind), it seems as if you are saying 'this isn't my behavior; I am simply emulating another's behavior.' While imitation might indeed be the height of flattery, I do not get the impression you particularly like or respect the editors whose behavior/misbehavior you are emulating. Why on earth would you want to emulate - and in essence become - that which you clam to dislike? Stop assuming that fighting fire with dfire is going to do anything other than burn you. Stop justifying your behavior in relation to anyone but your own.

The assumption of good faith doesn't excuse bad behavior. Your behavior in negatively characterizing the edits of others is indeed bad behavior. If they do it to you, the objective is not to respond in kind, but to be kind, and further delineate through your own behavior how their behavior is inappropriate. If someone treats you badly, get a second opinion from an admin you have had positive interactions with in the past. If it escalates, or the admin cannot cool things down, ask for mediation, or simply report the behavior in wikiquette alerts. This might all seem like a tremendous waste of time (in in some cases, you are absolutely right; it doesn't alter the behavior of someone who is determined to be an utter jackass). However, you are going to find that if you follow - correctly - the steps of dispute resolution the right way, you are going to have a stronger case when and if it gets to arbitration. In short, keep your cool, play nice, as those who do not get tired of being blocked all the time.

That's jut my opinion, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)