User talk:CorrectKissinTime

Welcome!

Hello, CorrectKissinTime, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! -RFD (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Brian Dell, on the issue where you are spreading lies against me (claimed/said on the manipulating the media statement)"

You know perfectly well that your edit with the "manipulate" summary is NOT the edit that I linked to. It was this reversion of my work that I objected to as edit warring and I linked to that and no other. If you are going to accuse me of "spreading lies", I suggest you not tell others, falsely, that "manipulating the media statement" was the "issue" I referred to. I only referred to your "manipulate" edit with respect to the part of it that reverted Tarc's restoration of the direct quote.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well that what you were writing here was "Why weren't you helping me when I was edit warring with CorrectKissingTime to take out "claim"?". This is what you wrote, and you wrote only about the "claim" part of my edit. And what you wrote about that part of my edit was a lie. And your lying is not becoming better by claiming you were talking about something different than what the evidence proves you did. You are a liar here, and if you don't feel comfortable with being called a liar I do invite you to have that reviewed at WP:ANI. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"you wrote only about the 'claim' part of my [multiple] edit[s]" Exactly. "only". So don't go around saying I wrote about something else as well (other than your reversion of Tarc's restoration of the direct quote). As for what I did write about, I complained about your reverting me to replace "said" with "claimed" without going to the Talk page first and that't not a lie that's the truth. I never denied that you subsequently changed your mind and reversed yourself. If you think you can prove otherwise than go to ANI and see if you can convince anyone to agree with you. If you want to argue context, the context here is "claimed" sitting there for days on end and you apparently being fine with that UNTIL I changed it to "said."--Brian Dell (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a liar when you claim I complained about your reverting me to replace "said" with "claimed" without going to the Talk page first. You claimed you were in an editwar with me regarding the said/claimed, and that is a lie. There was no editwar. Fact is that immediately after my edit I started a discussion for that on the talk page, and then reverted that back to your "said". You are using lies to attack me for something where I (without you being involved!) reverted back to the word you wanted. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamps indicate you're the liar when you call "without going to the Talk page first" a lie. You reverted me to replace "said" with "claimed" at 36 minutes past the hour and there was no Talk page thread on that issue at that time. In my books overriding another editor's contributions without FIRST trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion is edit warring. Edit warring is on a continuum, however, ranging from stuff that's close enough to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to not really be objectionable to obsessive, unquestionably disruptive edit warring and I'll grant that if that's ALL that was going on here it was mild edit warring, since you did subsequently start a Talk page thread. However, given that you also reverted the direct quote not just once (reverting me) but twice (reverting Tarc) within 65 minutes (and no rationale provided) I don't think clearly objectionable edit warring was absent, never mind mildly objectionable edit warring. You never did revert back to what Tarc and I wanted there did you? Now while it's true that I said you were edit warring about a particular thing, not multiple things, but I think it's more justifiable to call the particular thing edit warring when it's also going on over something else. In any case, how objectionably or substantively you were edit warring was quite beside the point I was making (did I, or did I not, also say "*I* was edit warring..."?), which was that this wasn't an issue until I made the first move to get rid of "claim", and you couldn't have put a whole lot of thought into reverting me - the key offending element in edit warring as far as I'm concerned - when you reversed your position as soon as you saw where RG stood on the matter. It seems to me that your real grievance here is my calling out what your very recent position was on the issue.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make another observation here. When someone flip flops as fast as you did, that suggests to me that there was never much real conviction in the rationale you gave me for reverting me. In other words, the fact you dropped "all the RS say is that an unnamed US official made a claim" like a hot potato tells me that you weren't reverting because you were genuinely concerned about what "all the RS say", you instead reverted because you wanted to undermine the credibility of the US official and were fine with throwing out whatever excuse for doing that that was expedient. As soon as someone agreed with you that Russian claims and US claims be treated the same, you jumped over to that equivalency horse as the more effective tactic for working this article. I'm not inclined to be lectured about integrity from this sort of editor.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "flip flop" is what intelligent people call "listens to arguments". I understand that this is something you would not be doing. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was this some kind of retaliation?

I found this somewhat contradictory and unpleasant. You started a discussion at WP:ANI ([1]) for much the same behaviour against TheAirplaneGuy. You even templated them ([2]) just the way he templated you. Did you do this in retaliation? You may respond here, I'll be watching your talk page. Looking forward to your reply.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]