User talk:Bagofscrews

Spot on!

Thanks for your edits at Twelve Tribes communities, it really helps! By the way, have you edited at Wikipedia before? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder why Butlerblog so arrogantly disagrees with your thanks. Bagofscrews (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Regarding your recent edit ([1]) on Twelve Tribes communities, please use WP:EL as your standard, not other articles. Wikipedia is always in a state of editing for improvement, and as such, suggesting that an article do something because that's how it is on another is not valid support. Only rely on WP's actual guidelines, policies, and manual of style. There is no requirement that an EL be positive, negative, or neutral. If it is negative but from a reliable source, it may be included. Some of what you removed would fall under WP:ELMAYBE. Next, be careful that your edit only removes what you intend. The edit in question took out a Wikimedia Commons template necessary for cross linking in the project. Lastly, trim down your edit summaries (WP:SUMMARYNO). Use the talk page if necessary for more involved explanation. We'd rather see you use an edit summary than none at all, but find a happy middle ground. ButlerBlog (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Butlerblog, anything better to do than act like a stalker, setting yourself up to get alerts each time someone like me makes and edit, and then give them a plethora of complaints over their edit? That’s nothing new. I’ll bet there’s as much bad to say about your edits if someone wanted to. Is this a way for you to derive some satisfaction, by getting to point out faults? Bagofscrews (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to read WP:GOODFAITH as "assume good faith" is a fundamental principle here. You're a newer editor and I'm merely addressing specifics of your edit in regards to the specific guidelines noted. Notice that I addressed your edits and not you personally, whereas you called me a stalker. We don't make personal attacks here (see: WP:NPA). ButlerBlog (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Butlerblog You can’t live up to the policies either. I didn’t call you a stalker. I asked you if you had anything better to do than act like one. You aren’t acting in good faith here just digging up policies upon policies to catch people violating. There’s enough of these to hang anyone here. There’s a policy on welcoming newcomers, and certainly this isn’t being done. Bagofscrews (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't to police policy to "catch" you. It's to give you the reasons why your edit was reverted. A review of your edit history indicates that when you've been reverted before, you took issue with editors not explaining why. Ironically, now someone has explained why an edit was reverted and you also take issue with that. I understand that simply having your edits constantly reverted without understanding why can be frustrating. But that "why" comes from guidelines that we all operate under, without which there would be chaos. The list of policies and guidelines is daunting and no one expects you to know what they are when you're new. That's why we reach out an explain them to you. If you choose not to accept any guidance, that's your choice; but it's intended to help you. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Butlerblog, let’s see if you have the maturity to not have the last word and not encourage or induce some other person to come here to weigh in on a matter that isn’t their discussion. Butlerblog, there are many arrogant Wikipedia editors, though even amongst those who acknowledge this, they see not themselves as one of the arrogant ones. I got a bunch of paragraphs of silliness about keeping my edit descriptions to a minimum amount of text? Bagofscrews (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And he didn’t. He went and had the last word somewhere else. Pretty amazing somebody would spend this much time attacking other people on Fuckipedia! Bagofscrews (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

Don’t know about all these socks allegations. Some of them came from complaints about edits I didn’t make. However, giving up on Wikipedia and joke edits came after interactions with overly picky editors who made endless technical observations about minor technical issues with otherwise good edits. This would include for example Butlerblog starting it by leaving a whole spiel on my talk page about what I should put in an edit summary when apparently I used a few too many words to describe my reason to make the edit. That user is hostile and hypocritical. Wikipedia has become a rather unwelcoming place that’s full of arrogant editors that can’t take any criticism while they dish it to others, and also one that can’t even provide reliable unbiased information anymore. So long and good riddance, Wikipedia. The future for you isn’t bright.

Note to the editor: No need to bother removing this. If it’s not true then it should stay up so that people can look at it after time proves my thinking about Wikipedia to be false and if it is true it should stay up so the truth can remain. Being so hot headed and quick to remove every single thing shows that maybe you’re afraid of something. “If Ba’al is god, let him fend for himself.”

Butlerblog no reason to drop your morning coffee on the floor and give yourself a heart attack racing to post some complaint about this. It’s going to be just fine. Big news: out of the 8 billion people on this planet at least one of them doesn’t like you!

Bagofscrews (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]