User talk:Exploding Boy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:42, 15 June 2006

Please post new comments at the bottom of the page, and
please refrain from using extravagant signatures on this page

日本語

In recognition of your efforts in editing and removing unverified speculation from the Harry Potter pages, I hereby award you the **Editor's Barnstar** --Death

I award you this Editor's Barnstar for your work in dealing with the recent anti-gay trolls on homosexuality and related articles. Guan aco 03:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I award you this barnstar for your persuasive arguments presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to homosexuality and for consistantly standing up to those who try to re-write Wikipedia to reflect their world view. ReformedCharacter 15:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tea names

Sorry for late, I answered you on my talk. --Aphaia 10:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hey, I started this article a while ago, and it still needs a lot of work. I thought you might like to help. Pro-gay slogans and symbols. On a non-related note, as others said, I do think your username was quite amusing considering our last interaction a few minutes ago. The Ungovernable Force 05:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddness

We keep ending up at the same articles at the same time; I wonder how that happens :-) --Julien Deveraux 05:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, I know we have our differences when it comes to the whole sig thing, but I just wanted to say thanks that the whole picture fiasco at Ejaculation went civil and discussion went productively. Thanks again, and hopefully (since I won't be commmenting on the signature thing execpt for a final statemnet tomorrow) we can not hold our previous experience against each other once the dust settles. Later, Chcknwnm (talk) —The preceding signature was simplified .

Sig/temp

User talk:Exploding Boy/Sig

re: signature

Hi Exploding Boy, thanks for the note. Last I checked, lots of editors used images (some even several) in their signatures, and I did not know that it was against policy. I have removed it per your request (as you can see), and after reading the reasons for removal of unnecessary images. roma rin [talk ] 20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Exploding Boy 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watching Tattoo?

Not sure if you've kept an eye on it recently. A little flare out with a new editor trying to insert some anti-tattoo spin into the "health risks" section; not anything wildly false, but just at the level of "undue weight" and negative connotation. The editor, User:Doug rosenberg, has pissed me off a little bit, but it probably means I react too impatiently. So maybe I could borrow your wisdom, since you've made good edits there in the past. LotLE×talk 22:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do this properly, but you're an admin, so...

User:86.132.121.49 has vandalized Tamil gangs twice. If he should be blocked, could you please do so? Random the Scrambled 00:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Random the Scrambled 14:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality-related topics

You mentioned to Ros Power that she needs to look at Wikipedia's sexuality-related topics. I agree, she does! So, however, do I. Can you point me in the right direction, please? Thanks! ReformedCharacter 16:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to start would be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity). Exploding Boy 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Hey, I think the issue needs to die...so please let it. I shouldn't have made the comment in the first place and there's no point in continuing a discussion that is going to get people heated. Thank you for understanding, Ch u ck^(contrib) 05:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue needs to be dealt with. The current situation is untenable. Nathan and I need to discuss this; please, stop getting involved. You're not helping. Exploding Boy 05:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, I'm trying to help. By removing the thread, the situation and conflict was over. No need to continue it. I can get involved if I feel like it, I'm the one who started the comments (even though I shouldn't have). Please leave it alone. Ch u ck^(contrib) 05:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, clearly the situation is not over. If a good faith reversion of vandalism causes that type of reaction, the situation is clearly not over. Please for the last time, stop getting involved. You are not helping the situation. Exploding Boy 05:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough, please.

Every time I say/do something you don't like, you push me and push me, constantly test the limits of my patience and I've about had enough.

There was a very good reason why I said (on my talk): "I ask for those involved to please leave me alone". During the whole signature issue, you attacked me, had a dig at me several times, you were constantly incivil and even when you were told what exactly you did that was wrong and how it could've come across as incivil and disrespectful, you showed absolutely no remorse or guilt whatsoever.

It really looks to me that you constantly 'spoil for a fight'. You don't care whose toes you step on as long as you get what you want. There are other admins on Wikipedia who fit into this category.

I feel, by you continuing to bother me on my talk page, that you have absolutely no respect for me or my preferences.

Now, I am sick and tired of conflict on my talk page - if it's not one thing, it's another, if it's not one person trying to stir up crap, it's someone else. Kindly leave me alone.

Whether it's watching my pages, or even good-faith reverting of vandalism, I would appreciate being left alone, period. Thank you. — Nathan ^(talk) 05:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]