Jump to content

User talk:Miesianiacal: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
archive
Line 21: Line 21:
::[[Special:Contributions/205.250.72.215|205.250.72.215]] ([[User talk:205.250.72.215|talk]]) 18:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
::[[Special:Contributions/205.250.72.215|205.250.72.215]] ([[User talk:205.250.72.215|talk]]) 18:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
:::And I see from your dismissal of criticism of your editing habits as "aggressive response", you continue to beleive you're immune to Wkipedia policy and guidelines. I sincerely hope you're going to rectify that very soon. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
:::And I see from your dismissal of criticism of your editing habits as "aggressive response", you continue to beleive you're immune to Wkipedia policy and guidelines. I sincerely hope you're going to rectify that very soon. --<span style="border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%">[[User talk:Miesianiacal|<span style="background-color:black;color:white">'''Ħ'''</span>]] [[User:Miesianiacal|<span style="color:black">MIESIANIACAL</span>]]</span> 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

::::No such dismissal; no such belief. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of your criticisms of me, your response was aggressive -- a lashing back against the suggestion that ''your'' attitude and actions are problematic. Ironically, this response of yours is typical of your troublesome mode of interaction of with other editors, about which you need to think. -- [[Special:Contributions/205.250.72.215|205.250.72.215]] ([[User talk:205.250.72.215|talk]]) 01:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:23, 2 April 2010

Monarchy of Canada

I've looked into your background on Wikipedia and I must say that you have quite a rap-sheet for edit-warring -- yet there you are on Monarchy of Canada, at it yet again, against multiple users (I mean the name-account ones), and hypocritically issuing "warnings" against it, which quite frankly come across as hostile, under the circumstances, especially in conjunction with your hyperbolic accusations. I think you need to relax and recognize the right of other editors to edit. If you are half a vehement as you come across, you are going to ruin your health. You seem to be getting terribly upset over some fairly minor changes in wording, relating to some fairly straightforward history. It should not be seen as problematic for other editors to try out different wording, and this sort of minor tweaking should not need lengthy discussion on the talk-page. I strongly suggest that you cease and desist from so persistently putting things back as you, personally, want them.

Please, for your own sake as well as for the good of Wikipedia, consider your history of conflicts with other editors -- the escalating blocks you've had, the reams and reams of arguing and its tendency to turn personally nasty, the continual involvement of administrators in one way or another. If you look at it honestly, trying to be objective, you should see that you, and your behaviour and attitude, are the common denominator. This stuff is not helping the project, and I don't see how it can be doing you any good, either.

Sincerely,

205.250.72.215 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, before commenting further, have a read of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Your remarks are personal and unnecessary.
Secondly, you are an anonymous user making edits to matter that is clearly already contentious, doing so in a manner counter to guidelines such as WP:BRD and WP:CONS, and generally refusing to participate in discussions on the talk page. As you employ multiple IPs, it becomes extremely difficult to notify you of your policy and guideline breaches, though you seem to ignore them anyway, given that you've just reverted again at the article in question, giving an edit summary that shows a gross misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. All together, you are engaging in behaviour that only serves to inflame.
I suggest you review the rules of this project and make more of an effort to abide by them. Either way, as you've obviously noted from my own example, you'll either learn or leave. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I see from your aggressive response that I have made no impression at all on you. I'm sorry that I've upset you further. Do try to calm down; these are only some niggling differences, in an activity that is far from a matter of life and death. Maybe you should take a Wiki-break. That might give you a chance get a proper perspective.
Cordially,
205.250.72.215 (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I see from your dismissal of criticism of your editing habits as "aggressive response", you continue to beleive you're immune to Wkipedia policy and guidelines. I sincerely hope you're going to rectify that very soon. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No such dismissal; no such belief. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of your criticisms of me, your response was aggressive -- a lashing back against the suggestion that your attitude and actions are problematic. Ironically, this response of yours is typical of your troublesome mode of interaction of with other editors, about which you need to think. -- 205.250.72.215 (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]