User talk:DragonTiger23: Difference between revisions
EtienneDolet (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 235: | Line 235: | ||
I do not want to personally attack anyone's user.[[User:DragonTiger23|DragonTiger23]] ([[User talk:DragonTiger23#top|talk]]) 17:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC) |
I do not want to personally attack anyone's user.[[User:DragonTiger23|DragonTiger23]] ([[User talk:DragonTiger23#top|talk]]) 17:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC) |
||
But you have already. I suggest you tone down your language and focus on the article at hand rather than lashing out on other users. That's all. Thank you. [[User:Proudbolsahye|Proudbolsahye]] ([[User talk:Proudbolsahye|talk]]) 17:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:43, 10 June 2013
|
A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Gasr Bu Hadi, DragonTiger23!
Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
I think you are going to expand this article shortly, so I won't do anything.
To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Kalmyk Khanate, DragonTiger23!
Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Reviewed as part of page curation. Interesting historical article. Additional references may be helpful and useful. Kieranian2001 (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Krakow
The article Krakow deserves sources with well-developed background info, not a single line in book unrelated to the city that says "probably", only "probably (!) counted 10,000 inhabitants..." If you honestly believe that the similar expanded data can be found in other sources, please provide them instead of flaming the summaries with unsupported claims. The single line you added is out of place where it is now and it does not reflect the source. I would rather see a short paragraph about the Medieval population there. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
That's a lot better. Please allow me to make your one-liner into a paragraph. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Stop undoing
Stop changing the heading please.
Go make your own section. I made that section
It's the section of us all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268 (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- While I don't agree with the IP's sentiments, you shouldn't edit war over the heading - someone else will doubtless set it to whatever consensus is. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Stop yelling also
Please. I know it does not help. (Been there, seen that...) Best wishes. --E4024 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It did help. After that the admins 'noticed'.DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- No - it didn't help. I turned everyone against you, as can be expected. It negated your argument. Well done (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
LGBT stuff
Your sources belong to Christian publishers, certainly of no academic value. You could've easily searched what academics has to say about this issue and found this one. In any case I suggest you keep the "Ataturk was gay" battle with your Greek friends in Youtube where it belongs, Wikipedia is not a place for such mentality.--Kathovo talk 10:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why would christian publishers have no academic value, your arguments are the classic story I don't like it.
- LGBT in Assyrian culture has been investigated by historians and the sources I included had references to them. Yes I also found that some texts have commands against neighbors accusing of LGBT, I will add that too, but still it seems that Assyrians had an open homosexual society as their priests were men dressing in women clothes, and some kings also did this.
- I don't care about internet battles with weird people so your argument accusing me of ethnic/gay battles in YouTube is very childish. I am just adding information about ancient Assyrian culture, and your mentality about removing info which you do not like does not belong in Wikipedia.
- I will add the info back with the other point of view.DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- No you may not. That article deals with the modern Aramaic speaking Christian community. You may add LGBT info regarding ancient Mesopotamian religion into its existing article.--Kathovo talk 13:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Rawanduz massacre
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Rawanduz massacre. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Rawanduz. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Rawanduz – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Kathovo talk 13:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. We would only split out a separate article about the massacre if there was sufficient material for significantly larger coverage than in the original article. As it was, the new article really said nothing more than the article Rowanduz, and that article is very short and could easily accommodate some expansion if there is any further material. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Edits around homosexuality
I can't work out what you're up to, but if I was being cynical I would say you were trying to promote some sort of Turkish/ muslim/ Ottoman agenda. This resists any edits that suggest muslim/ Turkish/ Ottoman figures could have been homosexual (Mehmed the Conqueror). While at the same time you are editing Christian/ Assyrian/ Western articles with copious references to homosexuality (Sebastian of Portugal) - even though the sources you use are often weak. If this is what is happening then that is genuinely childish and not welcome on wikipedia (vandalism). If my suspicions are confirmed then I will alert what you are doing to an administrator. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Promote some sort of Turkish/ muslim/ Ottoman agenda?? Where are you basing this on? I have only removed these categories in 1 or 2 articles. I have already explained everything in the talkpage. I know you control the page of Mehmed II but I never see you undoing the edits made by anonymous IPs or other biased persons who ignore the talk page. If you are LGBT why do you find it disturbing that I add these categories to persons who are sourced. I think you are hypocritical adding eagerly weak sources to Ottoman rulers but then removing sourced info about Christian rulers. And about Ancient Assyria, the sources are not weak, that the sources are weak was claimed by an Assyrian user himself who probably is anti LGBT(!)
- I do not normally edit LGBT issues but I saw how eager IPs and Users are adding these categories to Ottoman rulers (Ofcourse because of hate towards Ottomans) so I thought maybe I should add these same categories to LGBT people where they seem to forget to add it(!). DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's clear to me know that you are indeed out to vandalise articles. I will alert an administrator to what you are doing. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not out to vandalize articles, you are very offensive against my user I will complain against the admins.DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please do, and make sure to copy me in. I find it interesting that you think that attaching LGBT categories to subjects is a way to discredit them. I think the opposite of course - and in some ways your edits have improved the articles and ensured there is much better coverage and promotion of LGBT articles on wikipedia. Well done! However, where the sources are weak the categories will be removed. Perhaps you should do some further research into LGBT issues and see if you can help build supporting text. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
No I do not do it to discredit and I do research I based this all on sources, why are you instantly removing everything? Why so much hostility?DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
If you want to see real discrediting edits, then you can watch the last dozens of edits in Mehmed II made by anonymous users ignoring the talk page. You really think they add those sentences because they support LGBT rights? Those persons are anti Mehmed II haters who hate Ottoman Empire because it destroyed Byzantines. They are also probably anti LGBT and think about LGBT as negative so they only add this to slander, they cherry pick from sources. Their point is also to accuse of raping so it is not about adding information but only slander. No Wikipedia user does anything to stop this unneutral editing.DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately this happens. We just have to deal with it. Historical sources from the past will often only report on homosexual behaviour where they are condemning it as a weakness, a sin or a crime (such as rape). To be honest I am not convinced Mehmed was homosexual - the term really has quite a modern interpretation. But we have to accept the possibility that Mehmed may have been sexually attracted to men as well as women - and I'm interested here in anything that sheds light on a possible sexual relationship with Radu cel Fromus. The story about the 14 year old boy, on the other hand, tells us nothing about homosexual behaviour (this is sexual activity with a child, not a male adult). And seems to be drawing deliberate parallels with Pelagius of Cordoba. However, that said we must take a step back and not become emotionally involved with the subjects of articles. We should not have a view on whether something promotes or discredits a subject (and we should avoid playing games based on national prejudices). All we can do is use the facts and handle them in a balanced way. I think the text as we have it does that (almost anyway). Contaldo80 (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
We have to deal with it? Why is vandalism allowed in this article? It is absolutely impossible to know of many Medieval rulers what their sexuality was. Especially on person whose person life is not known and only based on rumours. In the case of Mehmed II these assertions are based not on Ottoman historians or eye witnesses but anti Ottoman Byzantines whose works contain much more accusations. These assertions should not have been added in the first place, they are weak sources and not neutral. It is not contributing to the article and was only added to slander by certain Users. Unfortuantely this happens all the time in Wikipedia. There are many more negative sources about this Sultan. We should expand the reign, administration, culture sections and stop adding dubious fictional claims about relationships.
About that part of Radu, I had already seen that in Babingers book which is the origin, in his work he states that Chalcocondylas claimed this in his book. Well those Byzantine historian wrote many more claims, it is also puzzling how he could know what happened in the palace(?) so you see its just propaganda rumors. So the problem is various Byzantine hate propaganda about Ottomans collected by Franz Babinger (an extreme hater of Sultan Mehmed II) are used by biased users on Wikipedia as slandering edits.DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- To be fair, turkish food over an open grill is the best...Mmmmm!!!! Basket Feudalist 18:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Sultan Mehmed II
I see you are working on the Great Conqueror; good for WP. Please delete the sentence beginning with "Another son of his was" because the following sentence already covers Sultan Cem. Also please change that section title to "Family Life". Some people have such an un-understandable enthusiasm to dig into slanders about the Great Sultan's intimacy that they have caused the WP article on such an important "brilliant" personality to have a this pale article... Please nobody come to tell me about principles, WP is about national complexes (of those who have lost). Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- I tried to improve the article a little bit, of course you are totally right about the biased haters whose only goal is to discredit. How incredible they are! I have not seen any Turkish user going to Byzantine emperors or their historical personalities trying to do what they do. After years of violation and hate on Mehmed's page I searched for sources about LGBT in Western royalty, they literally went crazy and then they pretend they are tolerant and neutral! Some even came here threatening me you can see their whining above and then they continued adding LGBT info about an historical person whom they know nothing about. So much biased people on Wikipedia they do not shame for their hate behavior at all.DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- You're presumably talking about me and my "whining". I'm not biased against Mehmed II. I don't hate Ottomans or Turks. I a not interested in digging up slanders. I have no strong feelings about them at all. I couldn't care less about "Byzantines"!! Incidentally I am English and haven't "lost" anything. I welcome anything to improve LGBT coverage of western rulers. But unlike you I don't see it as a game of hurt national pride and attempts to "discredit" historical figures. I just want good sources that reduce edits being removed later on. Time to grow up if you're going to edit here properly. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Then do not add negative detailed dubious text based on claims to the page which was already discussed before. If you can contribute something other than this to the article. But if your only goal is to add negative false information about Mehmed II do not edit at all to this page. Go improve LGBT coverage of Western rulers.DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I do regularly, and discussion on those articles is generally more constructive and mature. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Do it moreDragonTiger23 (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Well if I wasn't wasting so much time trying to sort out your disruptive edits then I would. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you see hallucinations? I am not related to your disruptive edits, it is yourself.DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--В и к и T 15:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
DRN Reminder
A thread at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that you opened entitled "Mehmed the Conqueror" is awaiting a response from you. If you don't think this is still a issue, the thread will be closed in 24 hours. If not, please respond so that the dispute can be resolved.Hasteur (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Edit-warring
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. . If you remove the Circassians one more time, you will be in breach of 3RR, and I will report you. This is the first and last warning you will be receiving. Athenean (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
By the way, can you explain this edit [1]? Those towns are not Smyrna, and the fire started four days after the Greek army left, but 4 days after the Turkish army entered the city. Athenean (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
(Gemlik-Yalova) Circassians are not mentioned by the sources for the events, for example the source says village A was burned down by Greek troops. Then adding Circassians there is false and absurd, and this is based upon one sentence who does not elaborate at all. On the other hand the primary sources, report of commission and Toynbee never mention Circassian involvement in Gemlik-Yalova, why are you ignoring this? So Smith who uses these reports, the most logical explanation is that he probably mentioned Circassians by mistake in that sentence because of their atrocities in different regions.
(Smyrna fire edit)Well if you before blindly reverting my edit had read the article you would see, there was a section called, Greek Withdrawal from Anatolia, and there it was written that it needed Expansion, so I tried to expand it I did not do POV editing, what do you want that is written in that part? That the Greek army did not burn everything on their path of retreat? The Greek scorched earth policy seems to be relevant to the Smyrna fire article.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding Gemlik-Yalova, what is absurd is you trying to claim that "Smith who uses these reports, the most logical explanation is that he probably mentioned Circassians by mistake". It is not for you to decide when sources "make mistakes", whenever it is convenient for you. Regarding Smyrna, just because some IP added an irrelevant section, doesn't mean you have to expand it. By the way, why did you decide to do that now? Your timing is very interesting. You are aware that there is an arbitration case to deal with users that act in a disruptively in this are, right? Athenean (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Cherry picking that sentence is wrong the other sources do not mention Circassian involvement, do not distort the events. I did not time that edit, I looked at my older edits and found out that and now that I am busy with the Greco Turkish war. And btw it is not forbidden in Wikipedia to expose Greek army crimes, I do not know if this is the case in Greek wikipedia.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- So you admit that you are out "to expose Greek army crimes". Looking at your edit history, it does appear that you have an axe to grind with respect to Greek people. Just remember that wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, and those that are not here to build a neutral encyclopedia are thrown out. You would do well to remember that. Athenean (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
How is Greek army crimes related to Greek people, what kind of mindset do you have? I always respect neutral encyclopedia, and I am against not here to build a neutral encyclopedia so you should avoid trying to cover up a Greek massacre of Turks DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Endless reverts
As I see at least 6 reverts are performed the last 24h. However, I won't report you if you revert yourself. I advise you to have a cool head, at least don't remove the pov tags, which are necessary during ongoing discussions. Having a disagreement about something doesn't mean it can't be solved through discussion, right?Alexikoua (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I had to report you from the very beginning, your only goal is to deny the massacre, later you tried to shift the blame on Circassians, you are cherry picking and source abusing. Try to be neutral. Do not defend or try to justify massacres only because the perpetrators were Greeks.DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem provided that this is supported by a decent citation. Also, I never shift the blame to the Circassians, just wrote what Smith precisely states: "Greeks, Armenians and Circassians", didn't changed the sequence too, if you mean that.Alexikoua (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
[[2]]Alexikoua (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
You tried to shift the blame on Circassians do not lie by cherry picking and misusing a sentence as source.DragonTiger23 (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
May 2013
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
DragonTiger23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
see below DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
All I "see below" is an attempt to justify edit warring. Content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM, and that would have been the only justification for your behavior. Slow down; the world doesn't end if a Wikipedia article isn't the way you want it for a day or two while it's discussed and consensus is gained. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- This block is totally unjust, first I did not edit war I tried to solve all disputes on the talk page with explanation and sources. Second, if I made many new edits during 24h that was because, I tried to undo vandalism made by a non neutral POV pushing user, who is distorting sources and he should be blocked for this(see below). Why are these lying "users" allowed to cover up a massacre against Turkish civilians? Is this fair? Admins should not allow these false people to distort sources. If the situation was reverse and I would be the one who distorted sources to deny a sourced massacre of Greeks, I would be, without hesitation, BLOCKED INDEFINITIVELY.
May 19 block
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)DragonTiger23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi since some time I am discussing and editing on the Talk:Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres. I was first blocked for two days by Bbb23 for edit warring, now I have been again blocked for a week by Bbb23. I understand that I should not revert, I will not do it anymore so a block of one week is not necessary because I do not want to edit on that page anymore, or revert on any other page.(BTW I created Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres after putting lots of effort in it). Some users are complaining against my user on his talk page but Bbb23 did not even care to ask me my opinion,3 he removes my comments/diffs on my own talkpage,2 he silences me and treats me like I am vandal, while I have been contributing to Wikipedia since Apr 01, 2010 and created dozens of articles. I just want to say I am not a pov pusher or attacking users so the block is not necessary, I would like to contribute to other articles. I hope that anyone cares about my situation. Thank you. DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are kind of sending a mixed message here. On the one hand you say you will stop revert warring, but on the other you seem to blame the blocking admin for blocking you for edit warring. The important thing here is that you understand why edit warring is wrong and why we absolutely do not tolerate it. Unless you were not in fact edit warring the block is perfectly valid regardless of your opinion of the blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Seeing the WP:OWN attitude you have displayed so far at Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres, I am skeptical that you will not edit or revert in that article again. Athenean (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Personal attack
You made this series of effectively null edits ([3] and [4]) to make a nasty point and to personally attack another editor. The attack violates policy. The substantive comments in your edit summary belong on the talk page, not in edit summaries. If you repeat this kind of behavior, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Campaignbox Mamluk-Ottoman war (1485–91)
Hello DragonTiger23,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Campaignbox Mamluk-Ottoman war (1485–91) for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TKK bark ! 12:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Personal attacks
In this [[5]] you claim I've initiated personal attacks against you. This seems to be done in bad faith initiative since I was completely absent from the specific discussion. In general when someone disagrees with you it's not cool to blame someone unrelated.Alexikoua (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
List of massacres in Turkey
Nice job on the List of massacres in Turkey. Dividing it up by era/time period makes the article much easier to read. --1ST7 (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks.DragonTiger23 (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of massacres in Turkey may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Please stop the personal attacks
Please stop making such personal attacks as to telling me to "think" or that I possess such and such behavior and etc. I am suggesting that these types of attacks stop before making any sort of argument in regards to the articles. If continued, I will have to report you to WP:AE and file the report under WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBAA2. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not want to personally attack anyone's user.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
But you have already. I suggest you tone down your language and focus on the article at hand rather than lashing out on other users. That's all. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)