User talk:OnlyForQuadell

Edit summaries

Welcome to Wikipedia. I suspect you're new and might not know, but it's important to make edit summaries in the "Edit summary" box below the edit field. This becomes particularly important when making small edits that might not be readily identifiable by other editors. Please check out that bluelinked guideline. Also, it's usually best not to revert another editor who undoes your edit — that can be taken as edit-warring. Best to discuss the other editor's concerns either at his/her talk page or on the article's talk page. Happy Wikiing! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respect for the most blatant violation of AGF I can remember! You admit that you are far from understanding my edit, but revert it anyway. Balls! Or maybe, nowadays you don't need any balls for that, it's just assumed that you bite newcomers.

Also, you seem to have forgotten to send TriiipleThreat the same message, how comes?

One advise from me: It's best to discuss the other editor's concerns either at his/her talk page or on the article's talk page. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking me doesn't change the fact that responsible Wikipedia editors use edit summaries. Those who do not, such as you, have been known to make tiny, sometimes all-but-imperceptible vandal edits. I do not know if that is what you did, but this happens commonly, and reverting edits where the change cannot be readily seen and the editor refused to do an edit summary is the common course of action. I'm sorry you chose to immediately launch into insults and schoolyard epithets, and your remark about "most blatant violation of AGF I can remember" indicates you are not a newcomer, so I find your post disingenuous as well. I hope this is our final interaction. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking me doesn't change that fact that you started out assuming bad faith and never changed course. I ask you now to reconsider that and stop attacking me unless you find something I actually vandalized. Until then, how about do what you preach and discuss the other editor's concern either at his/her talk page or on the article's talk page?

Please point out any insults I made, and stop the personal attacks (like claiming that I insulted you). --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are at three reverts. One more and you will be in violation of WP:3RR. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are in the middle of an edit war and already in violation of WP:3RR. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Please point out any insults I made." That would be "Balls! Or maybe, nowadays you don't need any balls for that...." I think any admin would find that language completely unjustifiable. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, admins do all kinds of funny things. That doesn't make it in insult though. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Do what you preach and discuss the other editor's concern either at his/her talk page or on the article's talk page?" I did. I came to your talk page and tried to speak with you diplomatically. [This comment left by Tenebrae]

Actually you merely explained why you would assume bad faith. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Saying another editor doesn't have any balls is not an insult to you? Interesting. I guess we'll have to let an admin decide if your behavior is appropriate on Wikipedia.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are making stuff up, I never said that. Please re-read and use the opportunity to calm down a bit and start a constructive dialogue. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that you did not say, "Balls! Or maybe, nowadays you don't need any balls for that...."? It's at your comment posted 01:26, 31 August 2011. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did say that, but that's is not what you claimed before. I never said that you'd have no balls.

Again, reconsider your offensive stance, calm down, apologize, and start a constructive dialogue. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking up my comments

For the record, I do not leave unsigned comments. The paragraph ended "speak with you diplomatically" is the first part of my 16:22, 31 August 2011 post, which OnlyForQuadell broke up. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting hilarious. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Having cleared the air over at 3RR, I advise you to climb down from your argument with Tenebrae. Your response to him was in itself a remarkable expression of bad faith. I suggest that you address the content issue on the article's talkpage and stop arguing about the name-calling. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His assumption of bad faith was expressively made, I really don't see why you think it would be bad faith to repeat it here.

And yes, I am already in the process of discussion the changes, and I will stop talking to Tenebrae as soon as he stops to harass me.

Thanks for your help! --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside: Have a look of the name of the active section in Talk:Thor to see what I have to put up with. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're arguing about the vandalism characterization, where you are entirely wrong. I suggest you stop arguing or looking for reasons to take offense and explain your intentions in the original editing process clearly and concisely, without editorializing on others' conduct or intentions. Acroterion (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to take a closer look, then you will see that I started exactly that, the minute someone talked to me without attacking me.

Again, do you think that anything is wrong with that section's title? --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bold, Revert, Discuss

First let me say welcome to Wikipedia. You are correct that I should have left an edit summary, for which I apologize. The edit war at Thor (film) could have been easy avoided by using the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Instead of re-reverting, a discussion should have been started at that point. Template:Uw-3rr states "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right". This is especially true as I have come to agree with your position through discussion. Please be aware that I am trying to pile on but give you sincere advice. Happy editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated, thanks for the advice. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]