User talk:Pantwearingdoom

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hulk (Comics). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Cameron Scott (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Cameron, it is YOU who instigated an "edit war" with me. I simply made an addition to the page and you repeatedly deleted it without making ANY attempt to communicate your reasons for doing so. In future, kindly open a discussion on the talk page so we might resolve the problem. If you carry on making changes to the page, you may be blocked from editing. Let's try and be civil.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An updated edition I made to the Hulk page was once again removed by Cameron Scott, the difference is that this time he provided an explanation for it... and it made sense. If you could just have done that to begin with Cameron, things might have run a lot smother. Ah well, no hard feelings.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair warning

You log back into your Lynn Header account (I mean... come on - do you think we are idiots?), undo your edit and we can then discuss what's wrong with it. You don't - we then get both accounts blocked and the page is locked to new editors. I'll check in 30 minutes to see if that's what you have done, otherwise I'll get both accounts blocked. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the meat-puppet edit and suggest you start a section on the talkpage where you addition can be discussed. As for "we" - I mean the community. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming too much

BTW, as stated, Lynn Header is my wife's account. I don't give a toss whether or not YOU believe that, Cameron, but she is well within her rights to open an account and agree/disagree with me or ANYone on here.

She is, but NOT in direct support of your edits. Please read WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS. ThuranX (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... while I appreciate that those are the rules, I don't exactly have any control over my wife's actions.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take that to mean that you have no intention of explaining Wikipedia's policies to her, and in fact, you tacitly, if not overtly, to her, endorse her actions. Regrettably, that will result in blocks on both of your accounts, and more than likely bans at the IP level if your behaviors persist. I seriously suggest you both grow up a bit, and move on to either separate topics, or a new hobby. ThuranX (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't NEED me to explain anything to her, she can read, she knows what the score is. Such an chauvinist, even misogynistic idea you espouse that you believe I control her.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You made the replies. It's not like you're incapable of saying 'hey, wife, come read this, this nice guy linked us a set of explanations for the problems we're having. He says we should both read these.' No, instead you resort to cheap, lazy, uncreative insults. I don't give a fig what kind of household you run, if you're both acting in concert and both getting in trouble, then shouldn't ONE of you be capable of talking to the other and pointing out what's going wrong? I never said you 'control' her, but if that's what you need to think to 'win the internetz', go nuts. ThuranX (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I never said you 'control' her" And I never said I refuse to inform her about Wikipedia policy. She is already aware of it, although she hadn't read up on it when she decided to support my edit on the Hulk page. Oh, and I don't "run" this household, I would never presume to have such control over another human being.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your inability to learn from modeled behavior, corrected behavior, links to policy, and your confrontational, Holier-than-thou attitude, I'm done trying to help you both understand why your edits were reverted, and why you're currently up at Sock puppet investigation for your actions. It is clear to me you're here to provoke a fight, not to learn how to actually write nad improve the Wikipedia project. Good luck getting more fights started, then. ThuranX (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I were truly here to provoke a fight, I wouldn't have been quietly doing my best to edit pages properly in the first place, I'd have been leaving outragous content. You seem to forget that I was actually appreciative of you taking the time to inform me about what it was you found inappropriate about my Hulk edit.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were actually appreciative, you'd act like it, not make wild accusations about my motives, ethics, or thoughts. Let me be clear. You're here for the drama. You're obviously checking the relevant pages to this conflict continually, so give the f5 key a rest. You and your wife can either sit down, read the policies, and then write on each of your talk pages that you both understand where you violated policy, and commit to not repeating your errors, or else you'll wind up facing down some blocks at the SPI. It's your choice, it's her choice, I don't give a rat's ass if you both consider it Sophie's Choice. That's how it is. Learn to respect other people's talk pages while you're at it. ThuranX (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I committed no breach of policy, my wife did. Which begs the question; why are you talking to ME about it? Have you spoken to her about it? If you have, that should be enough... unless it is YOU seeking conflict?Pantwearingdoom (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting the Meat puppet is a violation of CANVAS, being the Meat puppet is a violation of MEAT. It's quite simple, both of you are guilty. Further, you're guilty of being an incredibly rude ass. How many times must i remind you, correct you, to get you to leave your edits in the proper place on my talk? I'm kind enough to do that for you, like I was kind enough to let both you and your wife know about the policies you'd both violated. Instead, I get a ton of grief for it. Must be fun, playing like the big boys on the internet, eh? Finally, 'Methinks he doth protest too much' is my current take on the matter. ThuranX (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Soliciting the Meat puppet is a violation of CANVAS" So you're saying it was wrong of you to solicit help from Cameron Scott on the Hulk page? Duly noted.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pantwearingdoom for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Cameron Scott (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was accused by Cameron Scott who didn't like an addition I made to the Incredible Hulk page but failed to explain why he didn't like it. He seems to think the only additions must meet his approval. The "sock" is an account belonging to my wife, but Cameron prefers to ignore that fact and go straight into trying to whip up trouble. Like it or not, Cameron, we're all allowed to edit, you can be a "little Hitler" as much as you like, but it won't change the facts!Pantwearingdoom (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pantwearingdoom: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information about personal attacks. I'll remember to refer to it next time you make personal jibes about my family life. I've tried to be reasonable, and THIS will be my last attempt. It's obvious we've gotten off on the wrong foot, and I AM appreciative of you taking the time to inform me of why my edit was not appropriate. Your accusations of "soliciting" help etc are uncalled for though. Play nice, like me.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your report at ANI

Following me reading it, I went to ThuranX's talkpage to see what was there - and immediately reverted your warning. I did this for several reasons; Firstly, to stop this matter escalating - vandalism warnings are given when it is clear that there are bad faith motives behind an editors actions, and by saying ThuranX is acting in bad faith is not going to help toward finding a good resolution to this matter. Secondly, ThuranX has a notice saying that warnings issued as part of a dispute will be removed - so why do it? It makes you appear indifferent to the sensibilities of another contributor, and will not help your case. Thirdly, you placed it at the top of the page and not the bottom, which doesn't help you in making it appear that you know little about how this place works - so people are thinking you are arguing from a position of ignorance, which is unhelpful in the dispute matter.
You are going to help yourself far better by interacting civilly at the sockpuppet page, and by carefully reviewing and understanding the concerns expressed there. Please conduct yourself with respect for the others, too. Other than that page, I am going to suggest that you and ThuranX (and Cameron Scott) withdraw from interacting with each other while the SPI report is processed. I shall now make that suggestion on his talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. In good faith, I have removed the copy of the warning I sent to ThuranX from my page. I also removed his as I felt it was posted here in bad faith, and as you said, we want to end this amicably if possible instead of it escalating.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re "closing" accounts enquiry on my page - unless there are serious real life issues in having an account remain visible, in practice accounts are not formally closed. An editor may simply abandon it, and will sometimes scramble the password and disable email to stop it being otherwise used. The userpage may be deleted by request, although the talkpage usually isn't for transparency reasons - although it can be courtesy blanked. The reason for not closing an account is that any edit made by an editor should be tracable - it is part of the license that all content is issued under. However, seeing as there is that SPI report it would be best not to take any action until after it concludes. I hope this is of some help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC) ps. I have used the colon formatting system to "stagger" the individual editors posts - it provides easy reference to who is responding to whom.[reply]

Like this you mean? Thanks for the tip. I'm always appreciative of people trying to help.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, thassim... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you refrain from repeating the disputed edits to The Hulk (? I think, I am not following the dispute that close) while I attempt to find a way of resolving the matter which means you and ThuranX do not need to directly interact. Getting an agreed wording likely means it will last rather than fighting to get a preferred one which will only last until the next revert. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ThuranX is a good editor, at least when he is on your side, but can appear to be a little impatient. If you say the matter is resolved, then I will note that at the ANI discussion and with a suggestion that a mutual break until tomorrow will allow all parties to resume in a more civil and collegiate manner. I trust that your wife is agreeable also, if she intends to also continue editing? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My wife has an account, and edited briefly - I think she got tired of me saying, "Don't get involved in what I'm editing - don't stand up for me - don't do that, you are not allowed even if you are new...". I can't understand why she allowed her interest to lapse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although ThuranX's point that if the first editor reverts an edit with no or little summary and a second comes along and gives an explanation then there are either two good reasons for the revert or one very good reason. The object then is to explain why your preferred edit is the best possible and allow the arguments for that to decide the case (i.e. it is the merits of the proposed change that needs to be made, not demeriting the existing) - although knowing the existing reasons is of benefit. Sometimes editing Wikipedia is like a debating society, arguments are weighed and decisions made as to which particular edit is going to be the one vandalised when the article next gets hit... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia editing. You got lucky. Administrator LessHeard vanU is a stand up guy. You won't go wrong following his lead. Familarize yourself with the place...look around...let your mouse take you hither and yon, and see what turns up. Bounce around to different pages. User talks are always interesting. I myself like to use the Random article button over on the left side under "navigation". Especially when I get involved in a disagreement like the one above. I walk away from it. I learn a little...do some editing and article improvement, etc and I feel involved in a great effort. Its easy to get pulled into the morass of arguing here. But, its just as easy to stay calm, do some research, educate yourself to the ins and outs of expectations and stay on the high road.

WP:Concensus is required reading. Get a handle on it and you'll be ahead of the game. Anyway...Good Luck. Be Bold. Stay Calm. Enjoy.--Buster7 (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW...(by the way)...the blue color of things means it is a live link, there is an article or talk page there or an editor with more than, hmmmmmm, 250 edits (I think). Red means that there is nothing there except an opportunity to create an article. Editors in red have not met the "quota" yet. Don't be surprised if you get less than desired results while your a "newbie" ...it's kind of like the new kid on the block. --Buster7 (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite correct - a red user page link just means that the user page has not yet been edited. When it has been edited for the first time it will be a blue link, even if the content is subsequently blanked. – ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]