User talk:Theserialcomma

Welcome!

Hello, Theserialcomma, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the serialcomma

Thank you very much for easing my entry into WP land and also for blunting some of the pressure that I received. I know that it was mostly my fault but I really had no clue how to do this stuff in the beginning. I have been reading your edits on several different articles and have been learning a lot from them.. A lot of WP work seems to be just knowing the right way to handle information. I suspect that's its a combination of knowledge and art though..aharon42 (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

you are totally right, WP is more about following protocols than logic, reason, 'facts,' or 'truth.' anyway, i am glad you decided to stick around. let me know if you have any questions. Theserialcomma (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I just got a mentor and I also made a pledge to myself to do non controversial edits for the next year or so to help me build up my basic skills. I also am making an attempt to collaborate with as many different editors as possible. I am going to try to expand the article on Craig Davidson (McJeff recommeded that one), I will do Wikiknome stuff and anything else I will add first to the discussion section. Are there any really non-controversial articles that I could work on with you? I am very open to any topic so please feel free to suggest anything. With respectaharon42 (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your ANI is very detailed and thorough and I don't mind you citing my examples with him at all. I definitely didn't appreciate the fact that he tried to carry the debate from the Tucker Max talkpage to my talkpage in order to manipulate the discussion by not answering in the proper location for all editors to see, proceeded to down another editor (you) on my talkpage, and then talked down to me when I told him for about the third or fourth time to keep the discussion where it belongs. It really seems that he can read something and get a completely different interpretation from what it actually says, just like he misinterpreted and/or misrepresented what an admin said about me putting his comments back where they belonged on the Tucker Max talkpage in addition to making edits that he claims are concensus which turn out to be contradictory to what the outside editors actually recommended. I have sat back and observed him tell you and other editors how biased and "tendentious" you are (not civil in my opinion) and I just don't understand it. Just an FYI, I think what he's exhibiting is called "projection." It's also very interesting that his only allies in his "struggles" appear to be those sockpuppets. All of this over just trying to get the article accurate and neutral with proper sourcing in accordance with wiki rules. Atlantabravz (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for restoring my mistake! -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Holiday

I've noticed that you've gone to a bunch of different pages and removed anything that links to Ryan Holiday's blog. Even though he's stopped editing, it still violates WP:WIKIHOUND. I'll report you if it continues. Svernon19 (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

* {{help me}} I am being accused of wikihounding a personal blog by removing it from articles. since blogs are unreliable sources, I think that I'm doing the right thing. Is this person interpreting the rules correctly, and should his threats to be reported be taken as fair warning that I am violating wikihounding? Or is it acceptable to remove personal blogs from this encyclopedia? examples of removal: [[1]] [[2]] [[3]].

• It's definitely acceptable to remove personal blog links. With occasional exceptions, nobody's blog should be linked to on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I filed an ANI here: [4]. This was before I saw the above comment. And relax, I'm not threatening you -- I just said I would report it. Svernon19 (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

In hindsight, I think you were probably right about this one -- I probably shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. Svernon19 (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jizz in My Pants

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jizz in My Pants, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jizz in My Pants. Thank you. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki User Grsz11's Repeated Abuses

I see that you've run into user Grsz11. He repeatedly goes beyond the limits of civility and the flaunts the rules of Wikipedia. Many of his edits show an infantile outlook, and a vindictive if not downright vengeful attitude. If you go back though my recent run-in with him, you will see that he launched an AFD on Michael Z. Williamson's wiki biography page, simply because he had a political disagreement with Williamson. Grsz11 had ZERO support for his AFD, yet it took dozens of man hours of otherwise productive time to stop it.

You will note that GrSz11 repeatedly blanked your comments from his Talk page, in violation of Wiki policy. He did the same to me just a couple of weeks ago. It seems that Grsz11 wants to maintain a "Teflon sheen" on his talk page, so he deletes anything that is even slightly derogatory, just as soon as a he sees it. (I use the term "teflon" because nothing sticks.) His childish antics have gone on long enough. He really should be banned. Trasel (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

he did the same to me. after i complained about him, he followed me to an article i edit, and an AFD i was trying to keep, and voted 'delete' for fallacious reasons. the article was easily kept, and he was hugely overruled; but it shows his malice, which conveniently falls under the radar for signs of obvious abuse. now he's followed me to about 4 other articles that he's never edited before and he has since made 'non controversial' edits that undermine/reverse my edits, just so he could prove a point to me that he can do whatever he wants without repercussions. this is another type of subtle stalking that is currently ill-defined in the wikipedia abuse catalog, so he's able to continue this type of harassment for now.

under wiki policy, i believe he has the right to blank his personal page however he sees fit, though. the part that shows he is trolling, stalking, and harassing, is where he specifically wrote on the top of his talk page that he will respond only on his talk page unless requested otherwise. i requested for him NEVER to contact me on my talk page for ANY REASON EVER, and he went out of his way to immediately comment on my talk page, and then he stalked me by editing another article i've edited, which he's never edited, just to reverse my changes. these are, again, subtle forms of harassment that are ill defined by wikipedia's abuse standards, but it's still abuse. i think the problem is that he appears to be having some sort of a wikipedia meltdown, and he's lashing out against innocent victims. it's just unfortunate that his abuse has gone this long without correction from admins. i'm thinking of filing an ANI against him for WP:Harassment, wikistalking, trolling, and incivility. my very first encounter with him was when he involved himself in a 3RR violation report i filed against another, uninvolved editor, and grsz11 decided to respond to my report with the response of 'You lose. get over it' after my report was denied. he isn't even an admin, so i have no idea why he'd go out of his way to infuse his incivility onto edit warring reports. it's just how he operates i guess. because he is careful to skirt around wikipedia policies by passively harassing and passively trolling people, he's been able to keep this up for a while. i don't think it'll last much longer, though. his contributions to the encyclopedia do not outweigh his trolling and gaming of the rules Theserialcomma (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See the most recent comments at my Talk page for more discussion of Grsz11's activities. Now he's in the "Mommy, they're not playing nice" mode. Trasel (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Lee Hasdell

It says on the source he is! why is the source not reliable ? explain ? if it is indeed unreliable then why only change "he became the first to engage in NHB" etc ? u cant accuse a source for being unreliable and then only change 10% of it on the article. ClaudioProductions (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

hello. i've answered you in the article's talk page Theserialcomma (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

More Hasdell

Hey! Seeing you approved of the lead as it was on the talk page, would it possibly be a better choice to revert to it, instead of removing parts of Claudio's rewrite? I don't want it to seem like I'm telling you what to do when I don't want to revert myself because of 3RR, but maybe it's something to consider? Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If SFUK is unreliable then most of if not all uk mma pages need to be sorted out because most get there information from SFUK! ClaudioProductions (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice claim, but we're not talking about other UK MMA sites here, were talking about sfuk.tripod.com which have no proof of it being reliable. Sorry for intruding 'comma. --aktsu ^(t / c) 01:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma: What is it with you and SFUK ? how is it not a reliable source and who are you to say it isn't ? ClaudioProductions (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

it's because it's hosted at tripod.com. tripod is a free webhost. i would think that a legitimate source should at least have a real webhosting provider. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

who are you to tell me what to do ? entil you come up with a valid reason to why SFUK tripod is not reliable then i am just going to change it back. So you better come up with a reason quick! ClaudioProductions (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

you don't HAVE to listen to me, but considering the issue was brought up at the reliable sources board already, you should stop edit warring to include it. and also because you are (according to you) the article subject's son, then you especially should back off and stop edit warring to include unreliable sources. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

New Section

okay. as long as the edits are discussed without personal attacks, there should be no problem Theserialcomma (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

Hey, hope you're doing well and thanks for the help on the Hasdell-article :) Seems like we got it pretty much sorted. If you feel like it, I just got involved in another similar case over at Darren M. Jackson (unverifiable fight record, everything apparently from magazines/personal knowledge etc). I've got a long discussion with some guy on my talkpage about it, and he seems adamant about retorting the things I removed - though the twist this time is that he says he's not going to bother digging it up the sources for it again. Hopefully you can give me a hand as it's likely to escalate if he continues to insist on inserting unverifiable content. Regards, --aktsu ^(t / c) 11:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I'll step away from the article for today as it seems as Diamonddannyboy insist on edit warring over my removal of unsourced content and original research. Hopefully you can take a look at it as well, though it's not as bad as I first though. Main problem seems to be that the refs weren't placed properly so one had no way of knowing if claim were sourced or not. The Henry Jackson-thing is apparantly OR, and I've not seen any source for Darren's multiple black belts. --aktsu ^(t / c) 15:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

i'll check it out. he has no reason to edit war over unsourced claims Theserialcomma (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I felt I had to reinsert some of the (IMO) unproblematic sourced material you removed (like him training with some people). I posted on WP:BLPN and Skomorokh (talk · contribs) who replied didn't seem to have a problem with the Fighter magazine sources so neither should we IMO (as long as they're used on unquestinable claims). --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I also have a post on WP:RSN asking about that DVD-site and the "Gypsies" thing. --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You may want to comment. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

At danger of stating the obvious; did you see the two previous AFDs (links are on the talk page)? I think the fact that he's featured in two articles in Fighters magazine would generate a lot of keeps. While I personally agree that in the grand scheme of MMA he's not notable at all, there's still enough coverage of him to justify an article imo. If we can cut down on the purely promotional stuff in the article I think I'll turn out OK. What I'm most sceptical about is his fight record which seems pretty bogus. I've pretty much disproved he fought at both Cage Warriors events, so how come he's listed as fighting? :| --aktsu ^(t / c) 13:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

diamonddannyboy

if you wish to talk to me do so, on my talk page, --Diamonddannyboy (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost

This is a statement of fact that is not disputable. It is used as a reference for the number of domains, and nothing else. That is not original research, and it should not have been removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

sure it's disputable, which is why i've removed it. why should we believe that webhosting.info is a reliable source? Theserialcomma (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT label your agreement with an SPA a "consensus". That's just bullshit. The opinion of an SPA is virtually irrelevant in a consensus discussion, so actually there is no consensus for your change at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. try to be nicer, in the future. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not going to waste my time with niceties on an SPA. He signed up with Wikipedia specifically to inject his POV into the DreamHost article because he wanted to exact some kind of revenge. It's been bad faith all the way with this guy. I've been a Wikipedia editor for years, with over 8,000 edits, and I can smell these types from a mile away. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

well, waste your time with niceties with me, because i'm not an SPA. his motives are suspect, sure, but until he's blocked or sanctioned in some way, we can't just decide to discount everything he says as being irrelevant. we have to assume good faith. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

←I just want to clear something up here. I do not receive "compensation" from DreamHost for anything. Every DreamHost customer is automatically enrolled in the company's referral reward scheme. If people click on the link on my personal website and then sign up for the service, I get a small kickback - just the same as any other customer. It has nothing to do with the DreamHost Wiki, where I volunteer to eradicate vandalism. Also, you claim that my involvement in this article is "troublesome", but it is no different from any of the hundreds of articles I patrol on my watchlist. For example, I patrol the article about the town I live in - is that a conflict of interest? I patrol an article for an album I purchased that I happen to like - an article I created, in fact. Is that a conflict of interest? My only desire is to make sure that the articles I patrol are informative and fair. My extensive editing record over several years and several thousand edits over several hundred articles is proof of this. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

WP:ROLLBACK is a guideline, not a policy. I will use it as I see fit, just as I have been using for many years and thousands of edits without complaint. If you are trying to be productive, lecturing me about guidelines is a funny way of going about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: In fact, I am not actually using Rollback - I do not have rollback rights. I am using "undo" and Twinkle to perform pseudo rollbacks. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

my apologies. i thought you were using rollback due to the syntax of the message, but i was mistaken. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost - wait a sec

Look, I can see what you are trying to do, and I honestly think you are on the right track; however, I think you are going about it in the wrong way. Some of the sources you are using do not stand up to scrutiny. Let me take another look at it, and then lets try to collaborate on the talk page to create a text that we both agree with before putting it in the article. Agreed? -- Scjessey (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ok i agree. i am not sure if you posted this before or after i modified the main article, but i do certainly agree to further discussion on the talk page before any sort of edit war Theserialcomma (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've fleshed out a version of what you posted. I switched it to date order, fix up the references and cut out those that were "iffy". What do you think? -- Scjessey (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

←The DreamHost source is fine for the amount, but as you will see from the change I have made I thought it was necessary to explain the discrepancy between the two totals in the text. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I had to revert your rewrite because it was too wordy. It mentioned the erroneous $7.5m figure twice, for example. There is nothing wrong with it as it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

please provide a third party, reliable source that they reimbursed all their customers. at first, i thought one of the third party sources said that, but on second viewing, that wasn't the case. if you can find it, however, feel free to add it Theserialcomma (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A third party RS is preferable, but not required. "DreamHost EXPLODES!" is covered everywhere, but "DreamHost fixes damage" is covered nowhere. That is the nature of journalism, so third-party sources are unlikely. There are loads of blogs that mention the correct number, but they are arguably less reliable than the primary source. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

nope. how do we know that dreamhost ever paid back everyone? does it specifically state anywhere that they did? and does wikipedia give any weight whatsoever to 'loads of blogs' that say something? Theserialcomma (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not stating that DreamHost paid anyone back, so we do not need a reference to support that. And we do not need a third-party reference for a DreamHost statement. New wording I have just implemented solves these problems. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

i'm sure they did pay everyone back, but until there is a RS, we should leave that out. the newest version of the article leaves it out, so it should be ok. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally, I am very happy with the way this has gone. We collaborate well! -- Scjessey (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"prove it"

If you had bothered to look for references for what you deleted on the Basque Chilean page, you would been able to find a good many within five minutes.

But then again, why bother making the effort?--MacRusgail (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

there were like 50 names with no source. that is a violation of WP:BLP. and per WP:PROVEIT, the burden is on the editor who restores the material to prove that there is a source, not the editor who removes the unsourced material. if you want to bother looking for references, however, then you can feel free to add the names back once they are sourced. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You can quote as many bureaucratic rules as you like, what you did was in fact neither constructive nor helpful, and did not facilitate the restoration of some of the material when references were found. I found several in five minutes! You didn't even bother looking. "WP PROVEIT"? Well, you're obviously too lazy to try! Don't take the lazy option, take the helpful one.

--MacRusgail (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Talk:Firearm

Since you've never been blocked, I'm not going to issue one now. But you should consider this a final warning since you have clearly violated WP:3RRWP:EW. Please review WP:edit warring and WP:Dispute resolution in order to avoid this kind of situation in future. Thanks. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, got it. The saga is a mild but succinct illustration of the insanity of wikipedia, I think.--Asdfg12345 23:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected the note above. My mistake - my apologies - thanks for being a good sport about this. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Norman Finkelstein

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Apparent_campaign_to_accuse_Google_of_censoring_Norman_Finkelstein_search_results. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No conspiracy

Thanks for the background. I could tell by your tone that you were editing from a formalist perspective. In the I/P area there is an ongoing clash between hyperformalist approaches, and content editing, little of the academically grounded content can get far on any page, often because of formalist objections. But this is such a huge place full of microstories that to go from a general rule, or complaint, to a specific edit, has its dangers, and that is what I intended to point out. Thanks for your comment, in any case. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Firearm_(tool)

I did indeed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As the closing administrator, it's my job to simply judge consensus. Regardless of whether or not a merge is appropriate, there was no consensus to delete. As such, it's up the community to preform a merger. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I should have just blocked him the first time but Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Outside_view_on_User:Diamonddannyboy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Darren M Jackson

It's not really wiki friendy just to removed a sourced ref, you say dubious, if you thought it needed more citation, you should of simple added a fact tag rather than remove, in previous refed work regarding Henry jackson , editors used the birth deaths records to show the family conection between Henry Jackson and Darren Jackson, the orignal article was more about Romani fighters, now it's more about MMMA ? for some reason. Again if possible if you could add cite tags in future rather than just remove WP:GOODFAITH. I will being doing some searching on the birth and death records thank you--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:Goodfaith does not trump WP:BLP. and birth and death records are primary resources, not secondary, so they will not be acceptable for the purposes that you intend. birth/death records can only be used to show birth and death dates, not tenuous, original researchy family connections. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of YTCracker

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is YTCracker. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YTCracker (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

this is not your best bowl of cereal

you have an axe to grind with a soldier we can roll around on the mat like a couple of men - ive watched ufc at least twice i think ive learned a few moves Ytcracker (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

but seriously youve had it out for me forever what gives Ytcracker (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

k. Theserialcomma (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I WILL BOIL YOU ALIVERob-beatz (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

THIS ISN'T OVER Aerno (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Darren M Jackson

Can you just not removed sourced work, please see the DMJ talk page, before removing any more sourced refs, also death records are original sourcing...a link can be proved from HJ to DMJ and on HJ death record it show king of gypsies. Is there another issue here.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

IRC flood

I withdrwe the nomination because I trust Tothwolf to continue expanding the article as he has been. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Eggdrop

Hi. Please avoid edit warring, as you've done at the Eggdrop article. Disputes should be discussed at the talk page. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

you seem to have forgotten to warn the other editor, who has a potential COI and is edit warring to include an open wiki as a source. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems you're invoking the dispute, though. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Theserialcomma has some valid points meriting discussion here Juliancolton. Obviously edit warring isn't good, but I don't see a true edit war from either editor, and though one could develop, nothing to merit giving only one user a warning. But at this point, I wonder if any warnings are needed. It appears there is active discussion on the article talk page at this point. Prodego ^talk 05:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Theserialcomma, I strongly suggest you disengage from Tothwolf. You've identified the problems but now you can let others deal with them.   Will Beback  talk  06:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, i was fighting the urge to counter false claims, as i considered them to be blatantly uncivil, inappropriate, and unnecessary. but in retrospect, i can see how defending myself will probably not help anything. thanks. i do ask though, if you are going to engage him, please ask him to provide diffs for his specific claims. otherwise, he's just making attacks. thanks again. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

When I say disengage, I mean stopping editing the article too. Please don't act provocatively.   Will Beback  talk  08:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

i thought that removing that source was non-provocative - the article said something the source did not. i didn't anticipate that being a controversial edit. i really thought you were just talking about engaging with tothwolf directly. regardless, i'll use the talk page to discuss any future changes. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

by the way, why am i the one being warned when he is the one claiming that i'm "trolling, wiki-hounding, and (being) outright disruptive"[[5]]. isn't that a personal attack at some point? i'm making valid edits to remove bad sources, and he's calling me names and making accusations. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just trying to help resolve this dispute. The number one method for dispute resolution is disengagement. If you're not in each other's faces then there's less potential for conflict. This is a very short article in a very large encyclopedia. My advice to you is to just disengage and find something else to write about.   Will Beback  talk  09:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)