User talk:G2bambino/Archive: LonewolfBC

A censored discussion

[A discussion started at User talk:Lonewolf BC, retracted by myself, reinstated by LW, but, true to form, deleted by LW when it started to expose too much about his bad habits. I'm giving it yet another renaissance here so as to allow myself the ability to respond, but also to keep it in the light of day; his self-percieved infallability is just too gobsmackingly funny to be cast away like that! --G2]

Is there any particular reason why you choose to ignore the first step of the dispute resolution process? You might want to note that "talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it." --G2bambino (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is based on false assumptions that I "...choose to ignore...." and "...[fail] to pursue...", and is basically and accusation of bad faith. Viper-tongued messages of that sort are rude, unhelpful to the WP project, and unwelcome here. No more of them from you, please. We can discuss the editorial issue that has prompted your verbal attack on the talkpage of the article concerned.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's odd that you restore a message that I myself removed only to then complain about it. But, now that you have, I suppose it's only fair, and necessary, that I respond and say: you're right, perhaps you don't choose to ignore the first step of the dispute resolution process; maybe you just don't know about it. But, given the length of your experience here, I'd find that hard to believe. Regardless, there is indeed a dearth of contributions to talk pages on your part when it comes to disputes between you and I, especially; it's one of the main characteristics of your editing tactics that has always been most aggravating, and, as WP:DR#Discuss points out, makes good grounds for perceiving ill motive. If it is not your intent to provoke me into edit wars, then constructively and cooperatively participating in an open discussion would go a long way to proving that. --G2bambino (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really so odd, given that you'd posted the message and I'd written an answer. Next time, don't post the noxious message to begin with.
Your impressions of me and my "tactics" -- your very choice of that word starkly shows your wrongheadedness -- are basically out to lunch, and verge on paranoid. You are gravely mistaken, but if you won't take my word for that then believe what you like and keep it to yourself.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, I posted the message and then deleted it before you placed your response. If you didn't want any "noxious" commentary, why put it back? Like I said: odd.

As I also said, if I'm mistaken about your motives, prove me to be so; but do it through improving your attitude and, yes, tactics. Making over-dramatic feigns of insult and injury to your precious, self-imagined flawlessness certainly won't win anyone over. --G2bambino (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, yes, you posted a noxious message on my talkpage and then you removed it while I, as it happened, was writing an answer, and then I decided to post the answer anyway, having troubled to write it and because you had "said" what you said to me, despite that you afterward erased it. I suggest that in the future you think more carefully before you post -- perhaps especially when addressing another editor on their own talkpage.
Your ongoing personal invective against me does not bother me insofar as that I doubt anyone but you finds it convincing. It would nevertheless be better if you knocked it off, so please do.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to think any more carefully than I do; I only removed the comment at your talk because I saw you had replied at Talk:Expo 67 in the meantime; hence I said in my edit summary that I was going to place the comments elsewhere, and did.

That said, there's no intention to "bother you" on my part; in fact, I'd love to see the back of you as soon as possible. My only desire is the bringing about of an end to your consistent log-jamming of the editing process. I can't help it if this means exposing your poor behaviours, and I certainly won't quit because you tell me to. --G2bambino (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "I only removed the comment at your talk because I saw you had replied at Talk:Expo 67 in the meantime...
Now let's think about this... At 9:08 (UTC) I post on the article talkpage in response to your initial post there. Ten minutes later (9:18) you respond by saying "That's not good enough....". Twenty-two minutes later again (9:40) you post your accusations/complaints on my talkpage. In that same minute, the post from me which you seemingly felt was owing on the article talkpage arrives there, and so as 9:42 you erase your message (which meanwhile I've already read and so am busy answering). Does it not occur to you that maybe -- just maybe -- all of that does but point to hastiness on your part? Leaving aside the snarkiness and inaccuacy of your message, would it not have been wiser for you to wait some reasonable span of time for a further response on the article's talkpage, before posting on my talkpage?
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer you frankly: no. My 9:40 comment at your talk was made after some time considering, and was in regard to, the larger issue that is repeatedly causing problems (i.e. your persistent pattern of leaving the resolution of your disputes to others), not at all about a 20 minute delay in your responding at Talk:Expo 67. It was obviously mere coincidence that you responded at that talk page the very minute I dropped my comment on yours, and the response you left actually turned out to be appropriate to the point I had made over at your talk. Hence, I moved my words, to a better location, not because I regretted any undue hastiness on my part; plus, you typically delete even the most vaguely critical comments from your talk anyway.

So, it seems all that's left is just the "snarkiness and inaccuracy" of my message, which, of course, I don't think is all that apt a description of it; it might not have been the most gracious commentary I've ever made, but it wasn't even close to snarky, and it certainly wasn't inaccurate. --G2bambino (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. I can only lead you to water. Incidentally, your writing of a "20 minute delay" seemingly exemplifies your attitudinal problem: Twenty minutes should not be seen as a delay in getting an answer. Also, I hope you are not being ironic with, "It was obviously mere coincidence..." (though I rather get the opposite impression), but it could scarcely have been anything but coincidence, as you may realise if you think on it, and (lest you miss my point here) it was in fact nothing other than coincidence. Had you but waited...
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Delay" was used because you obviously thought that I had felt there was one; when I say I did not post my message at your talk because of any delay it was because I didn't think there was one. If I know from experience not to expect much further from you after dropping your un-elucidated judgment, why would I perceive a delay? I didn't think there was anything to wait for! But its seems, though, that it's a useless effort to try and get any other result here. I can see you have an interpretaion of what happened, and I can even maybe understand how that conclusion was come to, but you refuse to accept any other explanation. And that make this a prime example of the overreaching problem: from our present little discussion and your general pattern of behavior elsewhere, the way you see things must be the absolute truth, while anyone else's take - regardless of whether or not they're actually describing their own actions - is simply misguided and foolish. You don't even seem to feel the need to justify your superior ability to decide what is right and wrong, good and bad; we all must simply just take it. Egotistical delusions of grandeur. A way to protect yourself from admitting error, and thus flaw, maybe? I don't know, and I don't particularly care; unless, of course, those delusions get in the way of progress on an article again. I hope that doesn't happen, but, given your obstinacy, and penchant for tailing me around Wikipedia, I have my doubts. --G2bambino (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't think there was anything to wait for!"
Well... There it is. You didn't bother to wait for an answer, but just assumed you'd get none. So you posted a comment on my talkpage which obnoxiously assumes, quite similarly and in a "Do you still beat your wife?" way, that I don't take proper part in discussion.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion based on lengthy experience and observation. --G2bambino (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]