User talk:Smike/Archive

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Smike. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Secret ^account 14:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I rarely welcome users unless I'm impressed with their early work. I saw you editing an article on my watchlist, (see Help:Watching pages for more detail) and noticed your talk page was a redlink, so I decided to welcome to help you out on the project. With discussing an article or an editor, it depends on the situation. I usually reply back on the editor talk page if they tried to communicate with me in my talk page, or I have an issue with the editor or to ask an question. If it's a content related issue, it's more proper to communicate in the article talk page, unless you see no activity there. You could also be bold and fix the issue yourself. Wikipedia anyone can edit so it shouldn't be an issue if you see an mistake. If it's a more serious issue you could discuss the situtation in the proper noticeboard and get an uninvolved editor or administrator to help you out. If you need more information contact me on my talk page. Thanks Secret ^account 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings[edit]

Keep in mind MOS:HEADINGS regarding your edits to Jay Cutler (American football) and note my changes here. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User OMGuyZ, related socks, and their general running amuck on this fine day.[edit]

Re your message: OMGuyZ does not look like any sock that I'm familiar with, though I don't know all of them. If you have a suspicion of them being somebody's sock, then you should file an SPI on it. I don't think OMGuyZ is a sock of Thatoneguy95, as Thatoneguy95 was your typical school vandal while OMGuyZ appears to be just an enthusiastic new editor. I think all of OMGuyZ's edits have been reverted or changed as appropriate, so I don't think there is anything else that needs to be done. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Knocks discussion[edit]

Your comments on the Hard Knocks talk page are not civil. I'm going to respond to the content of your comments there, not the patronizing and relentless insults, and will make the relevant improvements to the article. Having read your user page (which at first I assumed was ironic) I'm not surprised at your arrogance. If you carry on in this vein I will take whatever admin steps are available to deal with it. --88.73.223.116 (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE been civil. I have consistently been light and comedic in my tone. I have not taken our discussions too seriously or become intense. In a nutshell, I have followed every basic policy on civility that wikipedia has, including:

"Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing offensive language at other users."
"Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others."
"Try to make coherent and concise arguments rather than simply attacking others, and encourage others to do the same."

If you feel I have not been civil, then that's no more than a misunderstanding on your part. You have not made it EASY to be civil, to be sure, but I have been civil. And for the record, the only incivility I've perceived on your part is your continual, unrelenting debasement of the Hard Knocks article. I don't feel that anything I've done is wrong. I've taken great care to work with you and to collaborate on improving the article, explaining myself at every step and trying to teach you a bit about Wikipedia and editing along the way, but you've rejected and rescinded most of my efforts. Of the two of us, the only one deserving of an administrative rebuke is yourself. Now once again, <old man voice> GET OFF MY LAWN! </old man voice>

:-)
- Smike (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all surprised by the arrogance of your reply. Please take this as well-intentioned advice - while your "old man voice" may amuse your undoubtedly wide circle of friends, using it here makes you come across like a tiresome douche. Perhaps you think using emoticons makes your comments seem less smug or obnoxious; it doesn't.

I'm not going to list every example of your patronizing and insulting remarks, but it should be obvious to you from my first post above that your words and your tone are not being seen as civil. Having had this pointed out to you, if you choose to carry on in the same way, I can only assume you are deliberately causing offense. --86.143.96.201 (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, now you're just insulting me. I'm sorry if you didn't like my expressive emoticon or "<old man voice>", but you just called me a "tiresome douche", sarcastically implied that I have very few friends, reused your old assertion that I am generally arrogant, and called me both "smug" and "obnoxious" by un-cleverly adding a double-negative to the assertion that "your comments make you seem smug and obnoxious."

If you haven't realized this yet, of the two of us you are the only one being ridiculously arrogant and uncivil here. And quite unnecessarily, I'd say, because let's be clear: my words are not being read as civil by you, while you're inserting a tone that's very likely inaccurate. Well, you can claim I'm the Cookie Monster if you want, but that doesn't make it true.

Hear this, anonymous user: in our discussions on this article's talk page, I'm going to continue to carry on in the same civil fashion I have before. If you've been offended by my frank and honest words regarding the edits you've saved to the page, and if the tone you have imagined me to have is likewise offensive to you, then you're taking this far too personally, as it was not my intention to cause offense. Our discussion on this article isn't of a personal nature. And while I've certainly been having a bit of fun critiquing your edits, nothing I've said has been intended to cause offense. I can't imagine that anything I will ever say to you will be to cause any offense, and you'd be quite wrong to assume that's what I'm deliberately attempting to do. I don't even know you, and would never needlessly transform an editing disagreement to a personal issue or attack you personally, unlike what you've done here on my talk page.

So in case this wasn't clear before - when I once again metaphorically told you to "<old man voice> GET OFF MY LAWN! </old man voice>" - please stop harassing me on my talk page. Let's keep our discussion on the article confined to the public forum that is the article's talk page, where it belongs.
- Smike (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]