User talk:Irishguy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sorry

Sorry about that, I thought the Discussion pages were for testing what you are going to write on the main page! oops, I think I accidentally erased people's writing? Do you think they got it back ok? Murph murph 23:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion pages are for discussing the content of the article. What are you referring to about accidentally erasing people's writing? IrishGuy 23:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the article you left a comment about which i chaged accidentally... i think i got the hang of it now Murph murph 23:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Hey did you change that picture back? I did explain why i was changing it... it is a more recent one. Is there a problem with it? Murph murph 23:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As per the discussions here [1], and here [2]. As well as your talk page, although you insist on blanking messages. Until those are resolved, the original picture should remain. Use the discussion page on the article (Talk:Trish Stratus) if you would like to argue the use of your new photo. IrishGuy 00:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

yes but as you can see i tried to put back the messages back on to my talk page as i didnt realise you weren't supposed to delete them... as for the picture, Lil crazy thing reverted it and said that they wanted a current picture. Now mine is more current, Lil crazy thing should be pleased. But in my opinion this person uploads all the wrestling photos and gets angry when anyone else wants a chance. there is another message on Lil crazy thing's talk page about another user who tried to upload a trish picture but Lil crazy thing wouldn't allow it. Lil crazy thing has a monoploy on the trish stratus page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murph murph (talk • contribs)

The other person on Lil Crazy's talk page was a sockpuppet for a banned user...much as you are currently accused of being. How does that defend you? IrishGuy 00:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

well i don't know, but Lil Crazy told me that they wanted a most recent pic and i found one. Also if you see Lil crazy's reply to that person Lil crazy was very rude, saying "don't bloody accuse me". Also, on the Trish Stratus history page Lil Crazy said that i would insult him?her for changing the pic, but i would never personally attack someone over a picture! This makes me think that Lil Crazy is used to people complaining that they aren't allowed to change pics. I don't think Lil Crazy will never budge on letting me change the photo. As you can see i added everything back on my talk page, I am trying to rectify mistakes I have made in the past. But believe me I want to improve Trish's article and this picture reflects her over the last few weeks. it is true that lil crazy has uploaded lots of wrestling pics and will not let anyone change them. Murph murph 00:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing the Trish Stratus pic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.203.132 (talk • contribs)

All of this needs to be discussed on the Trish talk page. Not here. IrishGuy 00:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey. this person 172.129.203.132 is not me, did you report us as the same person. However I am pleased that this person backed me up on the picture. I am fine to discuss it on the Trish board but are you ok to let me use that pic, I won't bother you again, thanks for all your help.. you have acted in a diplomatic way.Murph murph 01:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it that you got paranoid about being linked to 172.129.203.132 before anyone even brought it up? IrishGuy talk 02:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Actually you brough it up at 00:56...

" believe there is another sockpuppet involved. 172.129.203.132 first vandalized Murph murph's page here [1] by claiming Fag that keeps putting up stupid pictures about Murph. Then a few minutes later, 172.129.203.132 turned around and added the exact same picture that Murph had been adding to Trish Stratus (edit is here [2]). Why insult someone about a certain edit and then continue those same edits? IrishGuy 00:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)"

As you can see my reply was not until 6 minutes later, at 1:02.

Hey. this person 172.129.203.132 is not me, did you report us as the same person. However I am pleased that this person backed me up on the picture. I am fine to discuss it on the Trish board but are you ok to let me use that pic, I won't bother you again, thanks for all your help.. you have acted in a diplomatic way.Murph murph 01:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Therefore it had been mentioned..... by you! I am not being paranoid. You seem to have taken a dislike to me, even now I am trying to go about things in the correct way. Please don't hold grudges.

Also, I told you numerous times that I didn't know what the discussion page was for, and that I didn't know you couldn't delete messages. I had explained myself to you and you knew why I did it. I thoght you were being helpful to me, but then I find you have been criticising me and accusing me on other pages. Murph murph 14:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It was minutes later that you came back and altered the time stamp as evidenced here [3]. In actuality, your comment here about not being the same user happened at the exact same time I was writing my comment about it on the sockpuppet page (your comment[4] and my comment [5]). Anything else? IrishGuy talk 17:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what those coloured boxes mean, but I know I certainly did not change any time stamps. I have been nothing but courteous to you as I thought you were helping me, but I was wrong.

For your information I have resolved the dispute without your help, and that case against me has been removed. Please do not make lies up as you know full well I did not alter anything, you did noy want me to be able to defend myself. I really thought you were helping me at first, but you were going agisnt me at the same time. Murph murph 20:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The proof is right here link. You know exactly what those little coloured boxes mean. They are links. You click on them and then you see the edit history. Edit history which cannot be faked. IrishGuy talk 20:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have gone over the pages and I can see why you think I altered it but I did not. First let me tell you that you are taking advantage of my inexperience. I cannot link to those boxes, and no matter what you say I cannot tell what it means inside them. For your information I called them "coloured boxes" not "little coloured boxes" how can you quote me on that when it is wrong and what i said is a paragraph above? Stop trying to belittle me

Check the history on your page, my comment about not being that number was left at 00:56 and was unsigned. Obviously I saw the comment you left at 00:56 and went straight over to your page and wrote it. I then went back at 1.02 and signed it, making it look like it had been left at 1.02. Nevertheless I did not edit it, but it doesn't matter if you don't believe me, just stop accusing me of things please.

To tell the truth I don't care that you have accused me, the main thing that surprised me was the way you started to help me, but turned on me when you saw those suspect comments on my page. It has since been removed and you are the only one left who keeps accusing me of things, even though you really weren't as involved as all the other people who have since relinquished their claims. Why did you turn on me? I'm not trying to be offensive so if I am I am sorry, I am just so disappointed that you let others form your opinion instead of taking my word for it. The ironic thing is that the person who accused me realised I wanted to better the dictionary and took away the claim, yet you still accuse me. I'm sorry I ever thought you were going to help me Murph murph 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did I begin to think you were being disingenuous? Because I have never had to deal with new messages every eight seconds like I do with you. Methinks you doth protest too much. We have already clarified that you lied about replying to me six minutes later, when in fact your post was within the exact same minute that my original post was. Is it possible you saw it, ran over here, and posted a paragraph within that same minute? Anything is possible...but unlikely. I'm tired of having the same conversation with you repeatedly. It's done. Let it go. IrishGuy talk 21:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine, I will let it go, everyone else has realised I am trying to better that article apart from you. As for your accustaion, it's gone, along with the original accusation.. what does that tell you? However I do think you were trying to provoke me by misquoting me and trying to belittle me. As for having to answer questions every eight seconds, don't you think that's a slight exaggeration? After all, only a few posts ago you asked "anything else?" (note how I have accurately quoted you). To me, "anything else" is an invitation for further questions. But as I have said before I have not found you as helpful as you first seemed. In the future maybe you should treat new and inexperienced users in a more friendly manner, and you really shouldn't complain about people posting complaints on your page. I needed to address the situation. Just because you are bored with it does not mean it is over. I found it extremely boring trying to look at random boxes with bits of text in that made no sense to me. In the end I had to give up and accept your accustions of alteration! Well you can accuse me of altering something, but I'm accusing you of misleading me into thinking you were helpful and willing to help with my queries. I now know not to bother you again, I will ask for help from someone who actually wants to help, not to accuse. My advice to you is next time make your own mind up about people, not what it says on the talk page. After all I have never been abusive to you, I have been polite, trying never to be offensive, even though you provoke me at every turn.Murph murph 21:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to assist you in learning the ropes. You refuse the help. I give you links to look at and you refuse to look at them. I explained that they illustrated edit history, but you just keep saying you don't get it. I warned you not to remove text from your talk page (and even reverted text for you) but you did it again anyway. Note, you were warned twice before I even warned you...making it a grand total of three warnings and yet you continued to do so and later claimed you didn't know you weren't supposed to. If you have questions about Wikipedia, feel free to ask. As for this specific conversation, I am done. I know you altered time stamps. I highly doubt that you posted a reply within the same minute that I posted an edit in a completely different place. I'm tired of discussing it. It won't lead anywhere so what is the purpose? IrishGuy talk 21:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

All you said was that I knew full well what the links are, that's not assisting is it? I tried to look at it but I didn't understand it. It's not my fault that I'm not as experinced as you. You are always attacking, never giving the benefit of the doubt. I know I deleted from that page, and I even reverted it myself, that issue is in the past now, the deletion is not what I was talking about anyway. You also do not know I altered the time, you yourself said that I could have entered it within a minute - and that is what I did, and you know how promptly I reply just from this page! Therefore I'd appreciate you not say that I altered the time, becasue there is that minute portal, and you should take my word as others have willingly done, even the person who originally accused me.. but not you of course!

You say you helped me learn the ropes, in my opinion all I have learnt from you is trust no one. You have not helped remotely, when I didn't understand you just said that I did understand, that's not helpful is it. I did not refuse to look at he links, I did look at them! Don't accuse me of that when I did look at them, Again with the atacking! You could have given me a description of what the links contained when i said i did not understand , not just say that I did know full well how to read it. How do you know that I understand them? If anything you try to provoke me... and asking if there's anything else and when I reply you say that I ask you too many question! I think you should atually give new users advice, not just tell them they know full well when they don't at all! I still have no idea about those boxes! Maybe I'm stupid so you should be much more patient with us stupid people!

Thanks for your offer of help, but after my experience I will be asking advice from someone else who is more patient and accepts that I may have questions/queries and will not hold grudges. The only reason I keep replying is that I want to resolve our dispute, but every time you come up with a fresh accusation and then say you don't want to discuss any more. Surely you know by now that I will want to reply. I have tried to be polite, there is a lot of nasty rude people on here and I have tried not to be like that to you, so by now I thought you would have realised that I have good intentions and do not want a fight. I do not consider this a fight, I hope you don't either. I never want to insult or offend anyone, especially on the internet. All I want is for you to stop accusing me each time, then I will let it go. I also would like you to be more understanding towards me, and any others in the future. Thanks Murph murph 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

First you say I have no idea what those coloured boxes mean, but I know I certainly did not change any time stamps. So I tell you they are links. Then you tell me you know they are links. Then what is it you don't understand? I'm not a mindreader. You cannot attempt to penalize me for not helping me when you won't clarify what it is you need help with. If you don't even know what you need, I cannot provide it for you. If you have questions about Wikipedia, ask away and I will do my best to clarify for you. If you want to keep attempting to defend your past behavior, I will simply archive this page and delete any new comments you put up here. IrishGuy talk 22:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew it was a link because I clicked on it the fisrt time and it took me to coloured boxes. I did not understand the text inside them, so i said I have no idea what those coloured boxes mean, but I know I certainly did not change any time stamps. You told me that I knew full well they are links to edit history. You should have been more patient, and described what they contained and how they prove your point. You knew I didn't understand the content of the "little coloured boxes" as you insist that I call them, which I find offensive as I have been polite and gone out of my way to not be rude or nasty. Why are you like this? I do not attempt to belittle you. You knew I was very confused and you were not at all patient with me which has caused me to want to get to the bottom of why you are like this???

As for archiving, you can put my comments wherever it does not bother me. It's your page you can do whatever you like to it. But you told me that you cannot delete from a talk page. So why would you say that you would do something that you told me off for.

Also, in the last post I wanted to resolve it, but you continue to belittle me and accuse me. Can you accept that I want to improve articles without being accused by you, and you are the only one now who continues these accusations. Please don't belittle me, don't accuse me, and please don't say you tried to help me when all you said was i knew full well, when i was obviously so confused. Also, I would never ask you a question because you have made me feel unwelcome not just on your page but in the whole dictionary. One minute you ask "anything else " and when I reply you say I leave too many comments!Murph murph 22:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What does it take? I asked you here and on your own talk page to drop this conversation. I also asked you not to post on archived pages...and here you are doing everything I asked you not to do. While it is frowned upon by many to remove talk from talk pages, users are specifically barred from removing warnings from talk pages which is what you were doing and warned not to do. There is a difference. When I ask you not to post here and tell you I will remove it if you do...don't be surprised when I do exactly that. I have not belittled you. I have only accused you of doing things that I went on to prove you did via links illustrating your behavior. If that bothers you, don't do certain actions and then deny having done them. This conversation is over. Stop. IrishGuy talk 23:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)