User talk:71.163.153.146

An account of one's own?

Thanks for the message. You might want to register on Wikipedia. Here's why. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

who are you?

TNRThis user supports the trap-neuter-return approach to managing the feral sociologist population.

This user's favourite colour is puce.

Clear days on the AGF front

from Ceoil's talk page:

71.163 here

Ceoil, it's now obvious that you've mistaken me for someone else—I've never worked on any RvdW article that I recall. I don't see anything "sly" about adding an infobox; I added it for the reasons given on the talk page. Regarding my "incarnations", Verizon changes my IP address without explanation whenever it suits them. And, like I said, my conscience is clear in this entire matter. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well if thats the case then I misread, hold my hand up and apologise straight up. The thing is we dont often get informed people talking to us on 15th century paintings articles, its normally very quiet; give or take a few unplesant experiences in the past.

Whatever, thats where I'm coming from, will we put this behind us and move on? At the same time, you seems tidy and able to look after yourself, so you need my reassurance, why? Ceoil (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"we dont often get informed people talking to us on 15th century paintings articles"! If my welcome was typical, I can understand why that might be the case . I'm more than ready to move on—trying to edit an article where an editor has OWNership issues isn't worth the aggravation. Thank you, though, for your kind words. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome, sort of - you are trying to trap me in circular AGF nonsence, but you know, as do I. I wish we didnt have to go through this pretence everytime we connect; I mean come on man, its a bit old by now. Ceoil (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(link to youtube video "We will not be lovers" by The Waterboys). Ceoil (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ceoil responce

Point taken. My bad. Hard to mount a defence from here, but if you want to work with us, that might be good. Start again? Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ceoil and Victoria! Yes, let's start again—all is forgiven, and mostly forgotten. My behavior is gnomish so I mainly fix details, but I also feel I have an ear for what sounds "right" or "good" in English. When I'm in a ruthless mood, I follow E.B. White's dictum: omit needless words. I would like to contribute what I can to the article. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad to read this. Sorry for the grumpiness, mostly. I think you your an ok guy, but this isnt your first welcome, now is it. Ceoil (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Grand. Ceoil (talk) 04:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

[1] A CU at this point might be interesting. Ceoil (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Mindreading isn't my strong suit, Ceoil. What are you trying to say? Are you forgetting that I was accused of malfeasance for placing an infobox in the Nativity article? And that the timing of my action was "suspect" because ArbCom had just said something about infoboxes? Well, I went looking for this new ArbCom pronouncement and couldn't find it—I assume Victoria was referring to the RexxS clarification request that you've linked to. Yes, I am interested in how we use infoboxes in articles. (Sometimes they are appropriate and sometimes they're not. Like I said on the Christus Nativity talk page, I will abide by the local consensus, which is "no infobox here".) No, I am not Gerda Arendt or anyone involved in the infobox wars. A checkuser on me would be a waste of time. To answer your question about this not being my first welcome—like I said elsewhere, Verizon, my internet provider, changes my IP address without notification whenever it seems to suit them. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Play your games, as thats all you have. That you know of RexxS clarification, is all I need to know. You snide, untrustworthy, child. Ceoil (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears I've committed unpardonable heresy against The Church of No Infobox just by talking about infoboxes. Well, I guess we all have to believe in something, don't we? Members of your church seem to exhibit strong feelings of paranoia, Ceoil, and the strength of those feelings varies inversely with the importance of what you believe in. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Its not about that and you know it. That was just a clue that you are not how you present. This incarnation is just a cheap jibe, and you dont give one fuck about the article, you are just want to needle. Interesting hobby you have, I'm sure. Ceoil (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem able to take me at my word, old man. You prefer to trust your own paranoid suppositions instead. This problem may not be fixable. You fail to AGF. Beware of IP-phobia, my son. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)