User talk:Trofobi

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. When you recently edited Totenkopf, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages German and Skull and crossbones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Trofobi. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding I did say I'd have to check where to report trolling.... The thread is {{{Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance}}}#Talk:Broadsword_.28disambiguation.29.23August_2012_cleanupThe discussion is about the topic Broadsword_(disambiguation). Thank you. --ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I found the pages regarding how to report Wikiquette Assistance, and how to make this notice to be in need of a bit more clarification, so I may have made a few mistakes in the process of the report and/or the above notice.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, totally fucked up the notice. Well, you can check Wikipedia:WQA#Talk:Broadsword_.28disambiguation.29.23August_2012_cleanup, Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution and Wikipedia:Etiquette for more info.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you be so kind and fix at least the headline-mess and the WP:PA you left here. Or do you want me to deal with these? --Trofobi (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You can deal with the headline-mess. You can delete the whole thing if you want. It's you talk page. The important thing is that I've notified you.

As to a personal attack... I don't see one. Could you please explain in what way I have done such a thing? (but then, given that you haven't answered any other question I have asked, I'm not expecting much) I remind you that you are required to assume good faith (that being a fundamental principal of wikipedia, for good reasons that fully agree with). If there is a personal attack, then surely the Wikiquette Assistance will be able to identify and deal with it? Thus I see no problem there, and if you were to try and take things in your own hands would, no doubt, seem rather inappropriate ...and would probably make everyone more inclined to think that you are acting in a uncivil manner. In other words: I wouldn't recommend doing so.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, now I see what might have made you say I made a personal attack! The mention of trolling. Well, you did talk about the MoS, while repeatedly refusing to answer. In a reply where I requested an explanation for the n:th time, I said that further refusal would mean I'd have to check if there is a way to report trolling. "Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict."

Oh course one could argue that, given that trolling has to be "deliberate and intentional", I am failing to assume good faith ...but really. You were asked a basic and reasonable question. Repeatedly ...and repeatedly refused to give an answer. I didn't assume bad faith, I was simply given strong, repeated, indications of it ...but whether you really have been trolling, or otherwise uncivil, I'll leave to the Wikiquette Assistance.

Speaking of which, I would like to point out to you a few things from Wikipedia:Etiquette (directly copy-pasted) that are, or may be, relevant:

• Work towards agreement.
• Do not make misrepresentations.
• Do not ignore reasonable questions.
• If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.
• Recognize your own biases, and keep them in check.
• Avoid reverts whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except where exemptions apply. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
• When reverting other people's edits, give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page, if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes
• Amend, edit, discuss.
• Remind yourself that these are people with whom you are dealing. They have feelings. Try to treat others with dignity. The world is a big place, with different cultures and conventions. Do not use jargon that others might not understand. Use acronyms carefully and clarify if there is the possibility of any doubt.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)