User talk:Neutralhomer

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

WBQK

Please see WP:DPR#NAC. As the creator of this article your closing of the deletion discussion was inappropriate. In fact, that should be self-evident even without knowing the policy. Poor form indeed. Pantherskin (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying that creating an article is not editing? That was new to me. And you have edited the article, in fact even ignoring that you created the article you are the main contributor. What all means that you should not have closed the deletion discussion. Btw, you did not even close it properly. Pantherskin (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI

I looked at LTA but couldn't find what I was looking for ... this is the signature of some regular vandal whom we haven't seen in a while, I know it. WIsh I could be more helpful. Daniel Case (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
• Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking things personally,

Re, your message, fine, it was your article, but that is no reason to treat me like shit as you have been. There is no need for the hostility or insults. I left a single message on the closing admin's talk page. A single message. How is that jumping up and down saying 'look at me' until I get my way? To reiterate, a single message. First of all, yes, it is entirely possible for a person to make several consecutive mistakes, it happens all the time. Second, do not bring religion into this, it has nothing at all to do with it and I do not want to discuss it. Third, the admin did not decide keep. If you would take the time to read his first closure, you would see that he noted it was withdrawn. You want to throw around insults? Fine. I'm going to take the high road, and not jump down to your level. He wasn't voting keep, he was noting that it was kept, with a note about it being withdrawn, so it doesn't count how you want it to. Secondly on that previous note about how he closed it, if he had truly meant for it to be keep, and not withdrawn, he would have declined my request for the fix, but he didn't. As to taking it personally, I personally don't see how you could, as the article is maybe two sentences, a few templates, and an infobox. There wasn't all that much work put into it, it is more of a listing than an article. If you had put many, many, many hours into it, like some articles I have seen, I would understand, but I do not understand why you would put so much care into an article like that, so much care, that you can't even control yourself, and lash out at others needlessly. As to why it was so important it was noted as withdrawn, that is because that is how it is done. It is procedure, something that I take care to follow, something I care about, just like how I won't simply stand there and have a non-existent policy quoted to me. Further, I do not need a wikibreak because of three mistakes, you however, might, as you have been increasingly hostile towards me when I have spoken calmly, and civilly. You have been rude to me without warrant(AfD'ing your article does not make this behavior justifiable). Further, you think I should take a wikibreak for 3 mistakes(I know this is redundant), and yet, you have had many, many blocks for disruption. You say it isn't possible for a user to make mistakes that quickly, yet your block log is a living contradiction to that statement. Two consecutive blocks on the tenth, both for increased incivility. Both mistakes, all within a few short hours. Hmmmm... several more increases of said block due to constant increases of incivility and hostility(hmm, doesn't this sound familiar, perhaps, the conversation on that admin's page and the recent article talk page? I think I'm seeing a pattern..)... and what is this? Abusive sockpuppetry! More and more mistakes.. let's see, four socks. Looks like you kept making the same mistake over and over again.

I used to like you. I thought you were a good user with a sound opinion on a few matters where I have run into you, but after experiencing your unwarranted incivility and hostility first hand, I'm going to have to change that opinion. You have no room to tell me to go on a wikibreak, when you have made far more mistakes than I have, and you have purposely repeated those mistakes (not to mention the most recent two blocks for the same mistake on the 7th). Due to your increasing incivility and hostility, me thinks you should be the one to take the wikibreak.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Neutralhomer, I have your talk page watched. As two editors who I highly respect, can I make a comment? User:Daedalus969, the link you provided is not "treat[ing you] like shit" or full of "insults" "incivility" or "hostility" That said, I think Neutralhomer's explanation of Daedalus969's behavior could have been worded differently.

You have to understand User:Daedalus969, that when you put other editors work up for deletion, you are often going to get blowback. The question is, how will you plan to react in the future User:Daedalus969?

Admiting a mistake is noble and rare here, but saying such things as "I used to like you." almost nulifies this mea culpa. Daedalus969, I see the posting here as just as personal as Neutralhomer's posting, but even more so: "I used to like you." This doesnt help.

I would suggest you deleting this section Neutralhomer, and Daedalus969, unwatch this page please. Ikip (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re, your message(as an unrelated aside, I always try to link to the post I'm replying to, but sometimes I get lazy and just don't), I'm going to start off.. and carry this.. discussion in the same order as the aforementioned, linked, message:

That I can understand... I treat the quasi-detective work I do regarding sockpuppets in roughly the same way(this may be partly because well, I am simply not good at creating articles. In fact, I don't think I have created a single article, although I have substantially edited a few), but yes, I can understand that feeling.(to make this easier to read, I'm going to try and structure it the same way you did in the linked post)

Alright. I actually had not heard that saying before... nothing much to say here except that I now understand what you meant.

I'm going to do this slightly differently, but still say the same thing(you'll see): I can understand the headstrong bit. I myself have the same trouble.. I don't easily give up. That aside, I myself am sorry as well, for being rude, snapping back, failing to remain calm, and being insulting regarding your block log, and, if it at all matters, for commenting on the size of that article.

I understand what you mean now, and I can understand why it worries you.. I don't know if I can really explain my drive behind those mistakes at this moment, but in case I have not already said so, I was very wrong for perpetrating those three mistakes(obviously, but I feel the need to be redundant/transparent/whatever you could call this). ... And thank you for the compliment(I would also like to say on this note(the compliment).. that I .. I don't know what I consider myself. Established, sure, but I don't know about 'good')... on that note, I would also like to take back what I said regarding that further note on whether I like you or not. Simply(in case it already wasn't clear), I would like to put this thing behind us(however, I still have posts to address, and so....).

Maybe for you, wikibreaks help.. but I really don't have much to do. I spend most of my time on my computer, doing various things, such as modeling in the 3D program Maya. ..To the point, I did try a wikibreak once, when I was under much stress from dealing with a particular editor.. A long story short, it didn't help; figuratively, the wound did not heal, it just festered(I hope that makes sense), and as my forced wikibreak ended, I began editing with the same, if not more so, mood I had when I left.

Like I said somewhere above, I take back what I said, and I hope we can put this thing behind us.

It does explain things. I don't need anything more explained in detail, I believe, I understood things perfectly. Thank you, and thank you for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)