User talk:Foray

Welcome!

Hello, Foray, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

I'm sorry that your first message was such a rude message. I'd suggest coming to Talk:Flashlight and discussing the issue. kmccoy (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, and the genuine welcome, kmccoy. Foray 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep playing this little game of yours if you want, but I am FAR more strong-willed than you are and you will lose. If you have an explanation for your childish behavior, man up and bring it over to my talk page and I'll take care of it there. In the meantime, I will be reporting you to the (real) admins.

It would behoove you to go look at the flashlight discussion page so you'll have some clue why the text is there instead of continuing to act like a child. Betterthanyouare 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A second opinion appears to be necessary. Here's mine: Stop unilaterally removing the online status note of this link. Continuing to do so is may be regarded by others as vandalism. Femto 12:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC), 14:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Femto is incorrect. Continuing to do so is not vandalism. It is a content dispute. However, you should discuss the issue on Talk:Flashlight. kmccoy (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page has a relevant example of "user page vandalism" in its history. Foray 14:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong page, that happens, especially with the first edit on not yet existing userpages and talkpages. You removed it without consequences. Still, it was a message to you. (I have no idea how appropriate a fourth-level warning at the top of this page is, since I haven't gone into the history of the relationship between you and Betterthanyouare.)

So far the only four contributions from this account, aside from your user talk, are to repeat an already contentious edit. If you think collecting warnings isn't a good start, I agree, and that's easy enough to fix. Don't repeat the edit, and take the matter to the talk page. If an external link is occasionally offline, that seems reason enough to mention it. Femto 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You should really go to Talk:Flashlight and discuss your concerns with that text. kmccoy (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, YOU NEED TO GO TO THE FLASHLIGHT DISCUSSION PAGE. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO BE TOLD TO GO THERE WITH AN ISSUE??? What is your problem?? Are you afraid your point won't be taken seriously or is it that you don't actually HAVE a valid reason for changing the page?? Betterthanyouare 13:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not abuse minor edit markings. Check out Help:Minor edit. Your removal of the text was not a minor edit. Specifically see the section about "disputed pages". Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove content from a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Femto 12:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's not doing anything that warrants blocking. Are you serious? This is a simple content dispute. That said, Foray, you should discuss your issue on the talk page. kmccoy (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foray's argument of "unnecessary negativity" in the first edit summary remains the only one, and it was met with a good reason in the discussion at Talk:Flashlight. A "content dispute" would imply that a recognizable opinion is maintained on what exactly is the controversial point. "Assume good faith" ends after a certain amount of unwillingness to take part in any possible dispute resolution process. A reason as simple as "It's not true anymore, see their FAQ link here" would suffice. Thus to me, at least, the editing profile is indistinguishable from simple bad-faith content removal. Femto 15:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Femto is serious and so am I. I could not have explained it better myself. Look, Kevin, you need to get someone else (preferably an admin) to oversee this since this appears to have become some sort of personal vendetta of yours. Femto is absolutely correct -- "foray" has been instructed many times to discuss this on the flashlight discussion page. After every request short of an engraved invitation, he has not bothered to show himself there. There are valid reasons for the text being there on the discussion page. One can only surmise he has no valid reason for excluding the text and that is why he won't go there. Betterthanyouare 07:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call kmccoy's mediation attempts a vendetta, defending rights and assuming good faith is what all good Wikipedians should do, people just have different thresholds. Happy to be contradicted, though all what I see that's left here is a user who lost interest in a constructive argument, and who only returns to the article to give it a good frustrated kick, which can only be tolerated for so long. Femto 10:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Femto, I appreciate your understanding of my position in this matter. I understand the frustrations that accompany content disputes. I just think that the amount of disruption caused by the occasional removal of that note is minor. Whether that note is kept or not is a matter on which reasonable people can disagree, and while Foray should certainly engage in further discussion on the talk page, his occasional edit doesn't come close to warranting a block, nor is it vandalism. Perhaps Foray will decide to stick around and edit more than just the flashlight article. Foray, please do things here the right way by discussing your concerns on the talk page. While you may feel that your concerns are just going to be dismissed, you need to give it a try first. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Femto...at some point, it ceases to be a "content dispute" and then becomes just being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive alone. As he has been instructed by several people (including KEVIN here) and will not participate, I do not see any reason for him to be allowed to continue to do this. His behavior is nothing more than that of a troll. Betterthanyouare 21:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]