User talk:TreasuryTag: Difference between revisions
MartinManson (talk | contribs) →Dr Rachael Faye Hill: new section |
MartinManson (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
Just wondering why you have requested speedy deletion of the Dr Rachael Faye Hill page? It is a story that has been accredited by several different sources and as such she is a person of interest. |
Just wondering why you have requested speedy deletion of the Dr Rachael Faye Hill page? It is a story that has been accredited by several different sources and as such she is a person of interest. |
||
[[User:MartinManson|MartinManson]] ([[User talk:MartinManson|talk]]) 20:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:07, 5 July 2010
Just to fix the formatting...
Apologies for erroneous block
I'm sorry, I blocked you for a few moments just a moment ago. This was pure finger trouble on my part -- I was trying to block a vandal who you had just reverted, and blocked you instead. Please accept my apologies for the mistake, and thanks for the cleanup work! -- The Anome (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not to worry! ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 19:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Signature
Hi TreasuryTag, just a quick ntoe to let you know that your recent comment on AN/I was unsigned; it had a datestamp but not a signature, so I'm guessing you have some sort of problem with your signature at the moment. Just thought I'd make you aware of this; I've already added an unsigned notice to your message to clarify who left the comment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I probably just typed ~~~~~ rather than ~~~~ by accident. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 07:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Your recent post
TT, you do some good work, but your post on my talk page was way out of line. Making spurious accusations of "edit warring", threatening blocks, the whole thing stinks. I actually assessed the reference and found it lacking; my edit summary, and the subsequent post on the article talk page, clearly outlines that aspect of the matter. To be honest, you should have taken the matter to talk rather than reverting the IP three times, if you are really so concerned about "edit warring". Sorry for being so blunt, but this is one case where you really should have re-read your post before hitting "save". --Ckatzchatspy 09:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I did take it to talk. While you may have found the reference lacking, it was clearly a controversial issue which was being edit-warred over, and you chose to participate rather than participate in the discussion on the talkpage. That is a textbook case of disruptive activity and, as an admin, you should have known better. You should also have known better than to delete my initial post without a response, an action which WP:ADMIN tends to frown upon. Please think about your edits before hitting "save" – ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 17:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- See, again, you're not accurately representing the facts. Looking at the talk page, I did leave an explanation on the article's talk page; you did not. In fact, the only people who to date commented on the "controversial" issue on that page are the IP and me. So, please don't make ridiculous claims that I didn't participate in the discussion. Don't make inappropriate comments about "edit warring" when you, yourself, were pushing 3RR by reverting when the IP was making an effort to explain their rationale. Don't make incorrect statements that I deleted your post "without response", when I clearly did respond on your talk page. Look, I'd like to discuss this in a civil manner, but you need to stop making spurious accusations if it is going to work. --Ckatzchatspy 19:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not representing facts accurately? If I'm not much mistaken, you reverted first (clearly not within the spirit of WP:BRD) and only contributed to the talkpage discussion after I complained about your blind reverting. Have I got the chronology right?
- Secondly, you say that you did not delete my comment on your talkpage without response. That's an interesting assertion, though nevertheless completely false, since this diff clearly shows you deleting my message, and you did not communicate anything to me until after I complained – any mistakes in the chronology here?
- I'm beginning to see a pattern here, in which you carry out an inappropriate action, I complain, you make a token impression of doing something about it and then insist that the original inappropriate action is nullified. But I'm afraid not. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 19:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that you can hit the "save" button faster than I can doesn't mean your version of events is correct. Did you even consider the possibility that I might have actually taken the time to think through what I wanted to say, rather than just lashing out without actually assessing the situation? I really find it difficult to accept that you would think five minutes is an excessive amount of time to spend on a post. --Ckatzchatspy 19:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ah, you played the "I was writing the post all that time," card. I just won several small bets with myself. Since you ask, I did indeed consider that eventuality, and would probably have assumed it to be the case if it weren't for the fact that your response was extremely short (it genuinely does not look like the culmination of several minutes' creative endeavour), as well as my observation that you made multiple alterations to it subsequently [1] [2] [3] [4] which suggests that there was no extensive drafting process before you initially posted it. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 19:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Nice. Real classy, too. --19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ah, you played the "I was writing the post all that time," card. I just won several small bets with myself. Since you ask, I did indeed consider that eventuality, and would probably have assumed it to be the case if it weren't for the fact that your response was extremely short (it genuinely does not look like the culmination of several minutes' creative endeavour), as well as my observation that you made multiple alterations to it subsequently [1] [2] [3] [4] which suggests that there was no extensive drafting process before you initially posted it. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 19:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- By the way, "blind reverting" is not the same thing as reverting with a detailed edit summary and an explanation on the respective talk page, both of which I provided. --Ckatzchatspy 19:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- See my comment above about the fact that you only commented on the talkpage after being called up on it, and the fact that you should not have reverted at all anyway regardless of the circumstances. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 19:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Look, I've explained that I was writing to you at the same time you were posting to me. You can believe it or disbelieve it as you see fit. I've no reason to mislead you, but at this point, seeing as how the conversation is going, I really don't care. --Ckatzchatspy 19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- See my comment above about the fact that you only commented on the talkpage after being called up on it, and the fact that you should not have reverted at all anyway regardless of the circumstances. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 19:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that you can hit the "save" button faster than I can doesn't mean your version of events is correct. Did you even consider the possibility that I might have actually taken the time to think through what I wanted to say, rather than just lashing out without actually assessing the situation? I really find it difficult to accept that you would think five minutes is an excessive amount of time to spend on a post. --Ckatzchatspy 19:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- See, again, you're not accurately representing the facts. Looking at the talk page, I did leave an explanation on the article's talk page; you did not. In fact, the only people who to date commented on the "controversial" issue on that page are the IP and me. So, please don't make ridiculous claims that I didn't participate in the discussion. Don't make inappropriate comments about "edit warring" when you, yourself, were pushing 3RR by reverting when the IP was making an effort to explain their rationale. Don't make incorrect statements that I deleted your post "without response", when I clearly did respond on your talk page. Look, I'd like to discuss this in a civil manner, but you need to stop making spurious accusations if it is going to work. --Ckatzchatspy 19:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Dr Rachael Faye Hill
Hi,
Just wondering why you have requested speedy deletion of the Dr Rachael Faye Hill page? It is a story that has been accredited by several different sources and as such she is a person of interest.