User:Machine Elf 1735/ResponseToLancaster

  • I should have said WP:HOUND but yes to "lying about [me], being rude to [me], trash talking".
  • He has been anything but "polite", although it's hard for an outsider to spot in his ad nauseum repetition of grief issues with no regard for my opinion.
  • The history merge makes it less convenient to review the various diffs in the 3RR case but not impossible to see that he, in no way, "tried to avoid reverting [my] edits as much as possible". But, he sure did "use" the talk pages.
  • It was aggregating trying to collaborate with someone who lets you waste your time rewriting material they fully intend to delete. I suppose washing my hands of it is evidence of "apparently feels a strong connection"?
  • Regarding "A merge discussion has been going on since 2008". He made one comment in 2008, and it was completely ignored until I made the mistake of bringing it up in early August. As it's all less than irrelevant, I'll refer anyone interested to Talk:Energeia where they can see how much effort (around about 16 August) it took to get him to acknowledge that his "pasted together", incomplete "draft" was not an option. He re-added merge tags for a non-existent article, Actus et potentia, against consensus at the time, and he has characterized all that as "friendly agreement".
  • Now I know to strictly follow WP:BRD and insist on the status quo until there's a consensus for change. It's true I was naive about being setup for a 3RR that morning, (he deleted almost everything I had done), but I would have thought even he would just ask for a self-revert first. I just figured he's the kind of editor that likes to revert, e.g. my response to his second-ever edit to Potentiality and actuality, a revert, two and half days prior to the 3RR:
    'I just had to revert you. Is that how you want to do this? Or, are you going to start making some compromises? You certainly didn't just "watch what I do in practice".'
  • As usual, there's very little evidence, in reality, to support his guesses, and anyone familiar with his editing can see who has WP:OWN issues. I'm not surprised he's still harping on an irrelevant content issue. I expected as much and I'll leave it there.
  • I think the source of dramz is pretty clear. All I'm asking for is to remove a few unnecessary references. As for lies, since he brings it up, I can back up what I've said, even though he filled my documentation on Talk:Potentiality and actuality of one event with struck-out text.
  • I deleted the accusations in the form of questions from my talk page. Mr. Lancaster's repeated demands for what he considers a "clear" response, in what he considers a timely fashion, when there are only two editors there, have no resemblance whatsoever to WP:CONSENSUS.
  • I wonder how anything I might write on Dbachmann's user talk is supposedly intended for LoveMonkey ("see his comment intended for LoveMonkey on the user page of Dbachmann"). It's all painfully irrelevant, but at one point LoveMonkey was trying for a compromise, and didn't realize what Lancaster had been saying, he corrected that, (19:24, 16 August), and as he had no problem merging Dunamis I agreed to that, and later when it wasn't clear if he was still opposed to merging Energeia, I stated I'm OK with it if he is. Sounds like compromise and consensus to me. Much more so than brow-beating someone into agreement. See LoveMonkey's recent messages on Lancaster's user talk, if interested, 14:27, 24 August.
  • So, what's it gonna take to get those references to me removed from those particular posts Lancaster made in forums after I've said I don't want to contribute to them anymore?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.