User talk:WormTT/Adopt/Since 10.28.2010

Hello! Right, well, lets see. We can discuss things here without lots of public prying eyes, which makes things a lot easier. Don't forget the page is still visable to everyone, but as it's relatively private it should allow you to ask questions you may have felt there was a "stigma" to asking. I'll create some titles and we can add things there as we get to them.

Your Usertalk page

• The level one headers in sections

Would you mind explaining why you like level 1? The default is level 2, they look the same. All it does (AFAIK) is that when you create a new section, it defaults to a subsection of the section above, and in the majority of cases that doesn't make sense.

 Changed An editor since 10.28.2010. 00:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• The notices at the top

Let's go through them, and think about each one. I'd much prefer if we could narrow it down to 1 paragraph, say 5 sentences? Remember, a user talk page is designed to allow easy communication with you as a user, and having so many does not promote ease of communication.

Some general thoughts

• Putting instructions that are part of general wikiquette are redundant, just serving to take up space
• Putting instructions that are not part of general wikiquette is unhelpful, why should someone change how they work just to talk to you
• General information about you should be kept on your userpage, rather than your talk page.
• You don't own any page on Wikipedia, even your talk page, so it should follow general guidelines
• Why delete anything? It's still in the history, so you might as well be open and use archives instead. I can help you set up a bot to do it for you automatically.

• Use of the  Half done checkmark in place of the  done checkmark

No issues with that, though you do seem to make a few too many edits to do each thing. Endless fiddling is a little vexing. I'll explain a bit more below.

Messages

Moved to User talk:Worm That Turned/Adopt/Since 10.28.2010/Notices.

Your editing habits

I'll need to do a little research to confirm this, so to make my life a bit easier, can you opt in here? It just involves creating a page.

One issue is where your edits are happening and that you are taking many edits to do little changes. Are you using the preview button? I'm sure you're wondering why this is an issue. Well for one thing, it makes article histories (and user talk page histories) much more difficult to navigate. For another, it appears you are trying to falsly increase your edit count, so it looks like you've done more work than you actually have. For that reason, most people who've been on wikipedia for a long while stop caring about editcounts - it's even why we have the essay WP:EDITCOUNTITIS

Not trying to intentionally increase edit count. And with creating a page, exactly what am I supposed to do? It also appears to be this guy's page. An editor since 10.28.2010. 01:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Click on this page, click create, put anything you like in there. The very existence of the page means that you opt in.

You do seem to make many edits in quick succession, which can upset talk page flow, causes edit conflicts and is generally annoying to people. Can you try to use the "Preview" button, think about what you want to say and try and combine some of these edits?

It might help if you summarise what changes you've made in the edit summary. It helps you (and others) keep track of what you've done. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I just type, like a space, and then...what? I am slightly confused and don't want to create random pages for the purpose of “opt[ing] in”. Thanks again, An editor since 10.28.2010. 21:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is my opt in page. Create your page by writing anything you like, then save it, then press refresh on your browser. You will be opted in after that. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

 Opted in Check it. An editor since 10.28.2010. 03:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting things from your talk page

More discussion about the uses and benefits of archiving can come later. Right now, I think the speed at which you remove items from your talk page needs to be discussed. Many sections are removed within hours of being posted which makes it hard for other editors to follow your talk page and very hard for Worm and I to view your progress. Would you agree to leave all sections on your talk page until there hasn't been a response for at least 24 hours at a minimum? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

 Agreed An editor since 10.28.2010. 05:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Your talk page and strings of edits

I'm a little concerned by how much you edit your talk page and how your pie chart is set out generally. Remember, we're an encyclopedia, so the most important thing is working on the encyclopedia. The least important thing is User and User talk pages. Yet, looking at your chart, I'm seeing 48% user talk with the vast majority being edits to your own page. 856 out of 2896 - that's nearly 30% of your total edits to your own talk page! Compare that to say Ryan at 2.5% or me at 4%.

It's got something to do with you making strings of edits in a very short period of time - eg here you made 9 edits in 3 minutes, you can't tell me that was necessary. I've seen you do it a lot around the encyclopedia, and it concerns me.

Make no mistake, this is an issue. Why?

• It causes a much higher number of edit conflicts than is needed.
• It obfuscates your history, making things much more difficult to follow.
• It gives the impression that you are trying to increase the your edit count abnormally. (WP:EDITCOUNTITIS)
• It gives the impression you are more concerned with chatting than with working on the encyclopedia (WP:MYSPACE)

There are a number of solutions to these problems - I'd like to see you adopt elements of all of these.

1. Use the preview button effectively. Before saving each edit, press "Show Preview", scroll to the bottom of the page, look at how your changes look. If you're happy, press save. If you want to make any more changes, make them, press show preview and check it again. I've been writing this message for an hour using just that method.

   Perhaps even use the [1] "show preview on first edit" preference.

2. Use edit summaries more effectively. You should be aiming to have a summary of each message. It doesn't have to be very detailed, but if you can explain what you're saying, it makes things a lot easier to follow. I have 100% edit summary usage, and because...

   I use the [2] "Prompt me when leaving a blank edit summary" preference. Perhaps you could too?

3. Slow down a bit? You make a lot of edits in short periods of time, slowing down would help.

Perhaps Ryan will have some other suggestions too? Worm^TT · (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(The numbers below refer to the corresponding numbers above.) Yes, with the third and fourth bullets are not true, and yes,

1. I do use the preview button (if I were to estimate, it has jumped about 700% since last month). I just forget a small edit at the last moment.
2. I will turn the preference on after responding to this and below comments.
3. Yes, I am using edit summaries, I just occasionally forget in rushed edits (e.g. rush to go to appointment, etc.).
4. Exactly where is the preference for that? I can't find it anywhere.
5. Exactly what do you mean, “slow down a bit?” Do I like, wait a minute before making an edit, or what? And exactly who or what “would [it] help”?

(To be blunt: Am I going to get blocked for it? I honestly don't care how I spread my usage out. Do I really have to care about the percentage? And, I really don't care what impression there is, because it's just an impression, it's not true.) An editor since 10.28.2010. 19:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 San Francisco Giants Season

And now we come to your content. The 2011 Giants page appears to be your most prolific article creation. Again, there are long strings of edits. One thing I'm very unhappy with is "****Stats may change as games progress". Due to the obfuscated history, I can't actually see if it was you or someone else who put this in, but I have a feeling it was you, due to messages I've seen on your talk page. This shouldn't happen. WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Breaking news point out we are not a news site. We don't need to be the most up to date place to get information, and we shouldn't try to be. Updating scores whilst watching a match is not what wikipedia is about.

Also, why is there a long detailed information about one game? including 3 external links. That doesn't really meet requirements. *Game 73 Preview (Game 1 of three-game series) - Three-game series versus Minnesota Twins tied 0-0, **Game 72 Recap Any thoughts? Worm^TT · (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Will remove external links when I get to it. Exactly which requirements does it/they not meet again? And stats, I meant as in the pitcher's record and ERA, because it may change as he pitches a game, so afterwards it can be updated (sorry if it sounds confusing, I'll explain later). An editor since 10.28.2010. 19:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

General Questions

Temper tantrums

Hi Since 10.28.2010. What I'm about to discuss is possible a little delicate, so if you'd rather keep it off-wiki, feel free to reply by email. I am worried about your "uncontrollable temper tantrums". If they are uncontrollable, how do you stop them from affecting your work on wikipedia. I know the encyclopedia has had problems in the past with users behaving badly when drunk.

Despite the fact that a user may be helpful and productive the vast majority of the time, if they are disruptive for regular short periods of time, this will not be tolerated by the community. It's not up to the community to "look after" users, and whilst there are some who are willing to adopt/mentor/guide users, distruption will end up with the user being blocked. I've even seen conditions such as Aspergers syndrome, dismissed as an irrelevent excuse.

So, my questions are,

1. In what way do they effect your work on Wikipedia?
2. If they are uncontrollable, what's to stop you blowing up at a user?
3. Do you understand that Wikipedia (and me in particular) will take a zero-tolerance approach to any temper tantrum?

I look forward to your reply. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Usually my temper tantrums are ignited when users give opportunities to express anger. My approach is to usually just take a break, and visit other sites (as in, off Wikipedia, and external) in the meantime. Yes, I do understand that and why Wikipedia has a zero-tolerance policy, and I will abide by it in every case possible. (I also understand why you “look forward to [my] reply.”) The temper tantrums is usually caused by (suprisingly) the media, and the news. I live in California, possibly the worst of the fifty states (yeah, I know people used to say that California was the best of the fifty, but not anymore), and every day I wake up, I have to worry about losing my house to foreclosure. Anyway: enough with California, I will comply to all zero-tolerance-anger policies. Again, anger arises only when I am given opportunities. The research of medicine for the temper is still in progress and I look forward to its debut (doc told me it's sometime after I die; gee, who knew pouring colored liquids into graduated cylinders could be so hard). My solution, again, is to visit external sites (I will specify if requested). Now on a lighter note: thanks again for adopting, and I look forward to a good relationship at Wikipedia. Now for me: off to read a book, my favorite nighttime novel. Thanks again, An editor since 10.28.2010. 04:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I've taken so long to reply to this, but it's not an issue I've come across in the past and I'm hoping to find the best solution possible. I think there are actually a few issues at once here, firstly - you do seem to focus on certain things people say, even when they are "throwaway comments" and secondly, you appear to have a difficulty in letting things go.

A good example of focusing on things people say is that is my comment of "I look forward to your reply". I put that in because I don't like to sign the last item of a list, I'd rather put some text afterwards and sign that. After years working in customer service, that's pretty much a trite way of saying "I understand this conversation isn't over", and I couldn't think of anything else to say. I certainly didn't mean anything untoward by it.

On the other hand, I've had mentees who don't read the whole comment, and I can promise you that what you do is without a doubt less infuriating than that!

So that brings us to the second point, not letting things go. I hope you don't mind me taking and example from earlier this month Here. Now, this all stemmed from a comment by OS, that you shouldn't over use the wikilove feature - which he explained in light hearted terms. (In case no one ever explained to you, kitten-eating is an internet meme, based upon this and the "Kitten-eating monster" is likely to be this. Also :3 is a smiley face - associated with cute animals) He could have said "Try not to over use it because it becomes akin to spam" but that comes much closer to a warning, and keeping things light hearted generally leads to a more conducive working environment.

In this case - things started well enough, you asked him what he meant, he kept his light hearted comments (thinking it was fairly obvious, as I would have too). You insisted on him explaining his joke, which wasn't helpful, and he replied in an unhelpful manner. At which point things degraded a little bit and he disengaged. This is a perfectly reasonable disagreement, both sides could have done a little better but there you go.

The thing I find worrying about the incident is the fact that you asked over and over again at 01:31, 03:27, 03:38, 05:50 - which included a massive rant. Did you not consider he may have gone to sleep? This is exactly the sort of situation that I think you should have walked away, did you go and browse other sites then? If not, why not and if so, any idea why it didn't work?

By the way, I'm online tonight at the sort of time you are, so we might be able to have a more sensible conversation. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The comments below are responding to each paragraph.

1. Apology accepted for late reply, and I do understand that we both are obviously trying to find an answer. Yes, I do explode tiny things, and never let them go, but I never understand internet jokes (not like that helped, right?).
2.  Understood. I didn't mean anything toward it anyway.
3.  Acknowledged
4. Ohhhhkay. I get what it means now.
5. Look, I don't want to bring up bad instances, but here goes: Yes, “[I] insisted on him explaining his joke,” I still don't understand how it “wasn't helpful”. Yeah, then he replied...almost troll-like. Who exactly does he think I am again? I think we can all agree that “[t]his is a perfectly reasonable disagreement”, and “both sides could have done a little better” (a little more on his/her side, dontcha think?).
6. Yes, “[I] asked over[,] and over”, and over, and over, and over, but I can swear on my life that he was not sleeping. He just ignored me, and no, I will not walk away. I think we can all agree that I asked a quite polite question, and he responded with “It means spoiling the monster who eats them kittunz. :3”, which is absolutely unacceptable, as no one understands “what the ***” he's talking about. I responded back another nice comment (“What monster? As far as I'm concerned, they don't exist. Is the phrase like, a metaphor for something, or what? And what the *** is “:3”?”) (well, except the last part, “what the *** is “:3”?”), and he responded “They don't exist? No, really? ”. What kind of response is that?! Who does he think I am, WoW? I just wanted to pursue it. I wasn't thinking of the consequences. I asked him twice, “Please tell me what it is”, and never got a response. I then said “Please see this whole section, where in the eight comments I have written, and the thirty-two questions I have asked, only two of them have been answered, both with very sarcastic and crude humor”, which is absolutely true. I thought it would be a quick question, but he said “It means spoiling the monster who eats them kittunz. :3”. Anyway, I'm not here to piss anyone off, so I'm concluding this paragraph.
7. Not exactly sure how to respond.

Please refer to the number when writing your comment. Thanks again (“I look forward to your reply”), An editor since 10.28.2010. 18:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Have read this... will get back to you later tonight :) Focussing on re-writing the copyright lesson before you take it atm. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What? Tonight? Sorry, its afternoon here. What's “atm”? Thanks again, An editor since 10.28.2010. 21:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's 10:30pm here, and I'm working from 4am tile 10am, so I'll be around. ATM is internet shorthand for "at the moment" Worm^TT · (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

 Acknowledged An editor since 10.28.2010. 19:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Ready to respond to this. Now, I'm afraid I'm not actually happy with your answers - If I had been there at the time, you would have had a warning and possibly been blocked for your behaviour, whilst I saw nothing sanctionable from Obsidian Soul. I'm sorry to be blunt, but in my eyes, you were totally in the wrong and well past Wikipedia policies. So no, per (5) I don't think it was a little more on his side at all.

I'm sorry to go over old ground, but I do think it will help in the long run. We're in "amnesty" as far as I'm concerned here, no one is going to get into trouble, you're not going to piss anyone off (except possibly yourself). If you need to rant at me for being judgemental, fine do it here and keep it here.

I've place the incident below with tags. Feel free to discuss the points I've raised in your reply. (For clarity, I'll refer to your comments with brackets and the "refs" below with square brackets).

So dealing with your points. (1) I'm sure we can find a solution together. It may not be the best solution in the world but I want to see something that ensures you know when to walk away. In this situation, I would have hoped you walked away at [2]. Yes, [2]. You could see the user wasn't likely to be helpful at this point, and if you had a little experience you may have been able to see the whole upset coming.

Regarding (4), I'm pretty hot on internet memes. You'd do well to google them, google is your friend. ("Google is your friend" is actually a meme itself!) If you don't find it on google, feel free to come to me, but don't expect other people to do all the legwork for you!

Now (5). Troll-like? Far from it. A troll looks for situations where they can say things that would provoke a reaction. You went to him, and he replied to a question unhelpfully - very different. Who does he think you are? What's that got to do with anything? If a person make an off-hand light hearted remark, then someone comes and asks them to explain it, I can understand them not bothering.

(6) You will not walk away? THAT comment (and implementation of it) is what will get you banned from wikipedia. We have an essay called drop the stick and walk away from the horse carcass or something like that, based on flogging a dead horse. You need to know when to walk away from conversations - when no matter what you say or do, nothing productive will come out. It's a skill and one that everyone should learn.

More on (6), as I mention at [2] - I understood what he said and why he said it. I wouldn't have said it like that, but I have a lot of patience and I am good at explaining things. This is one of my greatest skills and it's the reason I have so much success with my adoptees, which in turn is the reason I'm an admin (in my opinion). That other people do not have my patience and communication skills is not a failing on their part, but a success on mine. What I'm saying (besides blowing my own trumpet) is that what Obsidian Soul said was not unreasonable, but light hearted. You had a problem with it, I understand that and I'm not criticising you for having an issue with his comment - but you flew off the handle.

I hope you see things more from my point of view (an outsider) - but I'm happy to chat anything said. I hope you see why I take a while over replying. You needn't use talkbacks with me, I do read things very quickly and get back as soon as I can. I'm hot on my watchlist, so I don't generally miss things. Worm^TT · (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the talkbacks (“You needn't use talkbacks with me, I do read things very quickly and get back as soon as I can”). The numbers below correspond to the above (#) numbers.

(1) Exactly what's [2]? (Oh, you mean his second comment? Ohhhhkay.) What do you mean, “[I] could see the user wasn't likely to be helpful at th[at] point, and if [I] had a little experience [I] may have been able to see the whole upset coming”? No, I could not “see the user wasn't likely to be helpful at th[at] point”. That, right there was an assumption. You assumed that “[I] could see the user wasn't likely to be helpful at th[at] point, and if [I] had a little experience [I] may have been able to see the whole upset coming”, which I couldn't. Now this would obviously not go under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (shortcut: WP:CRYSTAL), but it may go under something similiar (right?). Again, I could not “see the user wasn't likely to be helpful” and no, “if [I] had a little experience [I] may have been able to see the whole upset coming.” I'm kind of offended, to tell you the truth. Oh well, don't worry about me, I'm a minority.

(4) I really don't see how that was helpful at all as I cannot tell what the heck you're talking about.

(5) Yeah, well “he[/she still] replied to a question unhelpfully”, isn't that a violation per [[WP:SOMETHING]]?

(6) Yes, I refused to “walk away” in that situation (whatever that means). As I see that is obviously a problem. Your statement: “You need to know when to walk away from conversations - when no matter what you say or do, nothing productive will come out. It's a skill and one that everyone should learn.” Yeah, I think I'll decide what I do and don't learn, thank you very much. Honestly, I'm kind of offended. (Oh wait, I already said that. Move along.) Also, can you please explain “what he[/she] said and why he[/she] said it”? I have absolutely no clue. On a lighter note, your statement: “you flew off the handle.” What is this, an art class? (Sorry; in my opinion, I think figurative language and metaphors are stupid and retarded; just my personal opinion.) “What I'm saying ... is that what Obsidian Soul said was not unreasonable, but light hearted. You had a problem with it, I understand that and I'm not criticising you for having an issue with his comment”. Excellent! I bow to you, Lord WTT. That is EXACTLY (sorry; don't want to shout) what I want to hear from an expert like you: cut to the point (“What I'm saying ... is...”), and yes, I had problems with it (“You had a problem with it, I understand that and I'm not criticising you for having an issue with his comment”). Three (trillion) cheers for you!

Yes, I'm getting to the view (“an ‘outsider’'s”). But “I'm happy to chat anything said”? What exactly does that mean? I think you made a typo? Yes, I see why (“I hope you see why I take a while over replying”), and thanks (“I'm hot on my watchlist, so I don't generally miss things”, I'm not). Thanks again, An editor since 10.28.2010. 19:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, can I apologize for causing offense. It was certainly not my intention, but I feel discussing the issues directly is likely to show the most progress. I've replied to some of your points below, but will be heading up to bed presently. I've only had a few hours sleep, so I'm not able to go into the depth that I'd like to. However, I will do my best to reply further soon. I will however point out that you are using sarcasm against me - something you were distinctly upset with Obsidian Soul for. Can I ask why you feel it is acceptable for you to be sarcastic, but not Obsidian Soul?

I feel the entire issue focuses around the fact that Obsidian Soul can ignore you. Indeed it is recommended for users that you clash with and see no hope of productive discussion. You have to accept this fact if you are to remain a member of the community. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I have to respectfully and directly disagree with you that discussing the matter is good: I think the best way is to forget and move forward. Since you brought it up, the same thing that happened with Obsidian Soul is repeated. All of my anger is unleashed yet again on a basic question. Yes, you can deny the answer to me, but why would you want to? Why can't you just help out a fellow Wikipedian user? I completely and totally understand that you are heading up to bed, for the time zone difference. However, your statement: “I will however point out that you are using sarcasm against me”. Can you show me a few diffs or history logs, or comments in the section discussions? Your above question (“Can I ask why you feel it is acceptable for you to be sarcastic, but not Obsidian Soul”) unfortuneately can't be answered until I find out, where exactly did I use sarcasm? (If the sarcasm is in the reflist below, then I apologize; I got quite pissed off.) Thanks again, An editor since 10.28.2010. 00:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
PS: you don't think it's any help if we bring Obsidian Soul into this? I don't think so. Your thoughts are greatly apperciated.

The incident with my notes

Your comment here (shortcut): Just a question, exactly what does “spoil the kitten-eating monsters” mean? Thanks, A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It means spoiling the monster who eats them kittunz. :3 -- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What monster? As far as I'm concerned, they don't exist. Is the phrase like, a metaphor for something, or what? And what the *** is “:3”? A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

They don't exist? No, really? -- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Holy ***? Are you trying to tell me that I'm stupid? You need to stop your crude humor, and please tell me what it is. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 01:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You're excused. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me what it is. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 01:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me what it is. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 03:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you be so kind to just read this: “Do not ignore questions.” A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 03:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you be so kind as to provide a reason that you are not responding to my comments? I asked you kindly what “spoil the kitten-eating monsters” means or refers to, and so far I haven't a clue what it is. If you're purposely ignoring me and amusingly looking at my comments to see my funny responses just to piss me off, then I will depart from your talk page. Just please provide a reason why. And why are you trying to be sarcastic and piss me off: “You're excused.” “They don't exist? No, really? ” I really don't want to piss anyone off, and I really don't want to start a fight, but what the hell is your problem? I mean, why are you teasing me saying “They don't exist? No, really? ”? I mean, what the hell are you trying to accomplish? I am trying to find out what “spoil the kitten-eating monsters” means. Why? Just for the fun of it. I mean, why not? Am I restricted to a certin number of metaphors in the original mediokre vocabulary that I was born with (nothing)? I really don't want to piss anyone off, but you, sir (or madam), are pushing the line here, and just to let you know, I'm getting very angry. The purpose of me being here is to see if you would be so kind as to provide me with the definition of “spoil the kitten-eating monsters”. Look, some people say that I usually take things very offensively, and yes, that is true. So am I missing what you're saying, or what? If you are indeed trying to piss me off, then please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, one of the basic pillars of Wikipedia. Also, please don't be a dick. I really don't see why you are trying to play this strange “game”. I would like to request your point of view: when you were typing the comment, how did you think I would react? Were you suprised when I reacted? Or is this a joke? Or do you just personally hate me? If your anger is on my user signature, then please forgive and forget, as I have shrinked my username to normal size. It is still a work-in-progress. Honestly, if you're still mad, just get over it. Look, I'm sorry if I pissed you off in any way at any point it time, but you're just going to have to accept it. Anyway: please be so kind as to bring me an explanation as to why you won't tell me what “spoil the kitten-eating monsters” is? I apperciate all the trouble you have been through, and I thank you for any and all help. Thanks again, A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 05:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you, like only answer the first question that precedes a question mark in a person's comment? Oh, I guess my previous question is the only one out of many being answered, right? Are you a Bot? Why do you hate me so much? Why are you not responding? Are you like, taking a WikiSince10.28.2010Break? What's your problem? Why are you unresponsive? Why can't you respond to a simple question? Are you a dick? Why are you trying to piss me off? Please see this whole section, where in the eight comments I have written, and the thirty-two questions I have asked, only two of them have been answered, both with very sarcastic and crude humor. I really don't want to piss you off, but (quoting from above) “what the hell is your problem?” Please tell me what “spoil the kitten-eating monsters” means. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 17:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My comments

Feel free to link these above

Numbers correspond to the above. Note: all the comments I type are in the bluntest way possible. You are obviously free to change any tick or cross marks (this being a subpage of a subpage of your talk page) without prior preceding notice. (Ahh, a lot less  Not done cross marks make this section look a lot better, eh?)

1.  Agreed
2.  Not done You said “To him (and me) the joke is pretty obvious.” So are you telling me that I threatened him? (Frankly) I don't care. I don't know what it is, and I want to find out. There's no reference anywhere for it. And: “It's fairly bad form to expect someone to explain their jokes, in the same way it's not done for magicians to explain their tricks.” Again, I don't care.

   No, I never said you threatened him. But you cannot expect the world to bend around you, as an outsider I do not see issue with what he did or said. He is under no obligation to respond to your request. We are all volunteers here and we do what we want, when we want - we do not have to do anything more. I'll reiterate, you made a polite request on his page, he was unhelpful in return. I am assuming that you saw his request as unhelpful, by the tone of your reply. It would have been better to disengage at this point, say to yourself "This person is not going to be helpful, I'm not going to waste my time and energy on him"

   Please read #18, as I refuse to repeat myself.

3.  Agreed
4.  Agreed
5.  Not done I told him to stop his crude humor. I meant on that particular section. And: “Stepping over a line here.” Exactly what line? (Again, I hate figurative language.) Agreed: “You're ordering him to edit in a certain way with no policy to back you up.” True: “[I'm] insulted” What?: “and taking things to heart and are quite rude here.” No idea what you're saying.

   I apologize for talking figuratively, I find it helps for explaining but will try my hardest to avoid it in future discussions with you. Please do ask if I'm ever not making myself clear. By "Stepping over a line" I meant, you were were becoming uncivil - by telling him what to do. It was no longer a request, but an order. As a volunteer, he had no reason to comply with that order and became petulant.

   See #18.

6.  Agreed
7.  Agreed (after discussion) You need to get your facts straight. I used bold, not BIG. BIG difference.

   In this edit you used "big". It may be that this was a phase your signature was going through, and if that's the case, I'm wrong - sorry.

   Apology accepted (to be “blunt”: Yeah, you better be sorry!), and yes, it was my signature.

8.  Agreed (after discussion) Because he started ignoring me. Oh, now you're going to say “Exactly”.

   You repeated a question. That works in real life, as it's possible the question has been forgotten whilst attention has been lost. But repeating a line exactly is unhelpful.

   No, the second comment was unbolded. I'm assuming that that was what you meant, and this one was on my fault. Thanks again

9.  Agreed (after discussion) “the only problem is that it's too little, too late. The user has disengaged, and you haven't acknowledged that.” Oh, (to be “blunt”, whatever that means) I don't care.

   By "to be blunt" I mean that conversations are full and frank, I will tackle issues directly, rather than hinting at them.

   (To be “blunt”: Whatever.)

10.  Not done “You should have disengaged”. Hello? My question wasn't answered yet.

    This is the crux of the issues. The other user does not have to answer your question. It's polite for him to, but he does not have to.

    So...he was being rude?

11.  Agreed
12.  Not done Hey, I gave him chances, AND I was nice to him.
13.  Agreed (after discussion) I'm blaming him, because he pissed me off. Can you not see that?!

    He did not actively piss you off. He pissed you off passively. (IE, he annoyed you by doing nothing). That's not his fault.

    (To be “blunt”: Are you sure about that?!) Accepted.

14.  Agreed (solo discussion). Yeah, sorry about that.
15.  Agreed (after discussion) Did you not see the comments above?

    Yes. And I disagree that it's an issue.

    Accepted.

16.  Agreed (solo discussion) No one, but read #15.
17.  Agreed (after discussion) I'm not a dick, now you're the dick.

    Which is why I hate that essay, and would get rid of it if I could.

    Agreed.

18.  Not done “that's astounding” How is it “astounding” (whatever that means)? Why are you using my words against me?

    I am honestly astonished that you feel asking 32 question of a person who is not responding to you is acceptable. But I Feel this goes back to the crux of the issues. He does not have to answer your questions.

    Yes, but when I was writing the comment to him, I didn't know that “He does not have to answer your questions.” (I refuse to read every single policy on Wikipedia.) And I never thought it was acceptable, I never thought about the consequences when I was writing the comment, I just wanted the answer to my question. That was all I was thinking when I was writing the comment. Again, please don't assume things, like “I am honestly astonished that you feel asking 32 question[s] of a person who is not responding to you is acceptable”. I did not “feel [that] asking 32 question[s] of a person who is not responding to you is acceptable”, I just wanted the answer. And why are you using my words against me again? You know, if it were my choice, I'd just drop this whole discussion. It is a thing of the past, and should not be reminded of after the event's duration has elasped. (This is just my personal opinion, you obviously have yours, which is probably different.) “I look forward to your response.” Thanks again