MikeWazowski (talk | contribs) |
Djathinkimacowboy (talk | contribs) →A reply to Floquenbeam's earlier query: Unconstructive post stricken. New comment added. Edit conflict. |
||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
Sitush, now you have lost me. It seems I just can't post a goddamned thing. Do you know what I see here? '''Entrapment'''. It's classic. An editor gets confronted, gets in trouble, defends himself and here come the admins and even people like you. You all yell, "You're confrontational!"- and then I get punished for being "confrontational". What it really is amounts to my trying to defend myself, and I'm damned no matter what. That is what I see. You, all of you, want to see "battleground" behaviour stop? Then '''stop making WP a battleground in the first place.'''--[[User:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#800080">'''Djathink'''</span>]][[User talk:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#FF00FF">'''imacowboy'''</span>]] 21:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC) |
Sitush, now you have lost me. It seems I just can't post a goddamned thing. Do you know what I see here? '''Entrapment'''. It's classic. An editor gets confronted, gets in trouble, defends himself and here come the admins and even people like you. You all yell, "You're confrontational!"- and then I get punished for being "confrontational". What it really is amounts to my trying to defend myself, and I'm damned no matter what. That is what I see. You, all of you, want to see "battleground" behaviour stop? Then '''stop making WP a battleground in the first place.'''--[[User:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#800080">'''Djathink'''</span>]][[User talk:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#FF00FF">'''imacowboy'''</span>]] 21:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
* One humble request: I ask that the present confrontationalism (especially you, Sitush) be stopped. There's no point in anyone rubbing salt in my wounds. And you say ''I'm'' confrontational! Just leave my page alone whilst this block plays itself out. You've all proved your points.--[[User:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#800080">'''Djathink'''</span>]][[User talk:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#FF00FF">'''imacowboy'''</span>]] |
* One humble request: I ask that the present confrontationalism <s>(especially you, Sitush)</s> be stopped. There's no point in anyone rubbing salt in my wounds. And you say ''I'm'' confrontational! Just leave my page alone whilst this block plays itself out. You've all proved your points.--[[User:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#800080">'''Djathink'''</span>]][[User talk:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#FF00FF">'''imacowboy'''</span>]] |
||
:::"I'll remember that being a better editor involves veiled points and hypocritical language" This was not entrapment. You intended to insult other editors. You posted it of your own free will. The point obviously hasn't been proved when you then accuse others of entrapment. My response, and other's responses, to you have been good faith efforts to demonstrate to you why you got blocked so you can change that behavior. Your responses to us have been to try to level the playing field instead of accepting constructive criticism of yourself. Just because folks have been critical of you doesn't make them confrontational. You need to accept the good faith criticism, learn, and avoid the behavior in the future.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 21:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC) |
:::"I'll remember that being a better editor involves veiled points and hypocritical language" This was not entrapment. You intended to insult other editors. You posted it of your own free will. The point obviously hasn't been proved when you then accuse others of entrapment. My response, and other's responses, to you have been good faith efforts to demonstrate to you why you got blocked so you can change that behavior. Your responses to us have been to try to level the playing field instead of accepting constructive criticism of yourself. Just because folks have been critical of you doesn't make them confrontational. You need to accept the good faith criticism, learn, and avoid the behavior in the future.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 21:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
May I add something: {{quotation|Am I correct in remembering that you have been told before not to make unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry around? I'm pretty sure I remember this being a problem earlier in your editing career here.}}--this is from Floquenbeam. No, you are mistaken. Completely mistaken. I'd like my reply to you to be on the record. No sense in creating a false impression and I would be remiss in not responding directly to you.--[[User:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#800080">'''Djathink'''</span>]][[User talk:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#FF00FF">'''imacowboy'''</span>]] |
May I add something: {{quotation|Am I correct in remembering that you have been told before not to make unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry around? I'm pretty sure I remember this being a problem earlier in your editing career here.}}--this is from Floquenbeam. No, you are mistaken. Completely mistaken. I'd like my reply to you to be on the record. No sense in creating a false impression and I would be remiss in not responding directly to you.--[[User:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#800080">'''Djathink'''</span>]][[User talk:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#FF00FF">'''imacowboy'''</span>]] |
||
:Not '''entirely''' true - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&diff=next&oldid=462916973 this comment] from MarcusBritish warned you about considering anyone who disagreed with you about being a sock of Erikeltic. He also warned you about that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&diff=prev&oldid=462873295 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&diff=prev&oldid=462875080 here]. And you've been warned numerous times about your battlefield responses on a variety of subjects and editors. Just take the block and learn from it. [[User:MikeWazowski|MikeWazowski]] ([[User talk:MikeWazowski|talk]]) 18:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:: You never miss a beat. I was waiting for you, Mike. Knew that would be raised. I don't deny what I have posted yet it is pretty obvious to everyone involved (except a few) that I was being railroaded and harassed by Erikeltic. Your diffs won't turn any heads and there was no point to them. You merely dredge up a yet another situation in which we all behaved rather badly, yes? And now, if you will read my post below, ''you'' and your fellows might learn something....--[[User:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#800080">'''Djathink'''</span>]][[User talk:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#FF00FF">'''imacowboy'''</span>]] 20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::This is priceless - you claim that another editor is completely mistaken about your history. I provide diffs that show that Floquenbeam's memory was, in fact, correct, and you start complaining and ask for it to be removed? You were wrong, and were shown to be wrong. Fact. [[User:MikeWazowski|MikeWazowski]] ([[User talk:MikeWazowski|talk]]) 20:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
{{edit conflict}}While I have stricken an unconstructive post, let me say it contained a message I certainly deserved. The past is supposed to remain in the past, but since I have learned from what I have done and see what I'm doing wrong even now, I admit that I acted like I owned this whole place. ''Well, no more.'' Even someone like me can learn a new way!--[[User:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#800080">'''Djathink'''</span>]][[User talk:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#FF00FF">'''imacowboy'''</span>]] 20:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== What Wikipedia is- now I ''know''! == |
|||
All of this got me thinking: Wikipedia is owned by someone, not by those of us who work and edit here. Therefore we are privileged, allowed, to edit and be members here by those who own it. ''We are guests.'' I realise I have been a terrible, disruptive party-crashing type of guest. Someone I would not allow into my home. It was perusing [[WP:OWN]] that suddenly opened my eyes. That one word, "own". And I saw that Wikipedia is ''owned'' by someone, we are allowed to be here and '''must follow the rules that are set here''', as we would do anyplace else. Someone acting like I have done is being a rotten, inconsiderate guest, not contributing much, and trying to take over or stake a claim! ''Now I get it!!''--[[User:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#800080">'''Djathink'''</span>]][[User talk:Djathinkimacowboy|<span style="color:#FF00FF">'''imacowboy'''</span>]] 20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Help required == |
== Help required == |
Revision as of 20:41, 27 January 2012
If I am noted for anything here, I want it to be that I struggle to improve and I keep my word.
Blessed are those who are flexible; they shall not get bent out of shape.
Heads up
You are going to be blocked you from editing for a week if you don't lose the battleground attitude, stop edit warring, and stop slinging silly sock accusations around. Technically you've already violated 3RR, but as long as you don't revert anymore, I won't block for that. But you need to stop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Understood, but frankly I'm tired of being the whipping boy. How do you know puppetry accusations are false? Did you investigate? Do you know for a fact? Also, are you looking at the history? No doubt one or both editors DVdm and Favonian simply came whinging to you and you decided to act. Let me tell you one thing: don't come threatening me with a week-long block on my user page. Don't come threatening me with empty and uncivil threats. This was a matter between me and DVdm, who likes to play dirty. That's all. This will go to ANI if you or either of those editors do this again.--Djathinkimacowboy
- Some answers (somewhat stale, since event have overtaken them):
- Yes, I know for a fact the puppetry accusations are false. Am I correct in remembering that you have been told before not to make unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry around? I'm pretty sure I remember this being a problem earlier in your editing career here.
- Yes, I'm an admin.
- No, nobody came whining to me.
- No, your claims that I'm threatening you and being uncivil are not going to work.
- I can pretty much 100% guarantee that a trip to ANI is not in your best interest.
- --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
For the record, my attitude is don't dish it out if you can't take it and then accuse people of battleground behaviour. You know, DVdm, I'm seeing a lot of WP:UNCIVIL behaviour, rotten-attitude language and what looks like a sock puppet relationship with Favonian. I'm getting fed up with this. Warning and discussion is fine. This hassle is below the belt. Now you've dragged in somebody to come and threaten me on your behalf. Look, we've posted back-and-forth about all this before, and I'm tired of it. You almost seem to be wikihounding and WP:stalking. You are rude and don't usually explain yourself, though I try to just trust what you say. But now, you have totally abused my trust. Be warned, if you keep accusing me as you have been, or if you and Favonian keep acting like sock puppets, I will open an ANI for the little good it will do. Enough.--Djathinkimacowboy 23:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
As promised
Blocked for a week for the post above. You need to adjust your attitude if you plan to continue editing here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- You need to adjust your attitude. For an admin you are being extremely abusive. ANI "not in my best interest", is that it? So what is that? - looks like a threat to me. An unfair threat. I've already told all parties I will not revert or edit war anything, let them do what they want...but not to me. And what sock puppet accusations do you claim I have a record of making? Because I might have mentioned an unrelated suspicion months ago? This is outrageous. When I am able, I am certainly going to report your abusive block.--Djathinkimacowboy 23:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- D, as a bystander who has often been somewhat bemused by those comments of yours that I have seen, I am actually surprised that you have gone this long before receiving your second block. I admit to only seeing bits of what goes on but, well, I thought that I was aggressive at times, but your stuff is way beyond mine. Take the block, have a think and perhaps just turn down the volume a notch? Even the summaries that accompany your regular clearing out of this talk page make me cringe a little sometimes. I am probably not the best person to say this but the phrase "make haste, slowly" comes to mind. Best wishes. Honest. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sitush, your good wishes are truly appreciated. I just noticed your post so I make haste to reply. Frankly I can't recall off the cuff if you and I have had good words or bad, in the past. Perhaps if I explained something, you'd understand a bit of my harsh posture: I'm tired of being followed and lectured by high-horse-riders. DVdm is one of those, and rarely takes time to explain anything calmly. When he is wrong, he quietly finds a way to make me go away- as occurred here. As that editor and I have a history, well, things went berserk this time round. But you know, I always generally admired DVdm. I think that fact went to DV's head and here we are. You mention edit summaries. Honestly, I can't make out what it is that makes you cringe. Is it honesty? I don't lie and don't leave summaries blank like many editors do. I also don't hurl accusations for the most part. It's funny: too many editors think the edit summary bar means the talk page. That is how edit warring begins. Again, thanks for stopping in and offering encouragement. Please don't jinx it anymore by saying "Wow, took long enough!" --Djathinkimacowboy
- I reverted some recent vandalism on your page (an imposter, IIRC) and I watch the talk pages of some other contributors with whom you have had dealings of late (admins all, I think). It is late here and I am off to bed shortly; also, as I said above, I am far from perfect ... The provisos out of the way, I don't mind spending a few minutes tomorrow digging for a couple of examples to demo my perception of how you come across. How you take them is up to you but my offer would be in the interests of "constructive criticism" (a truly awful phrase, that is easily taken in the same manner as a sentence beginning "With all due respect ..."!) I may be wrong here, you know, but at the end of the day this project needs people with clue who can appreciate when to be firm, when to mollify, and when to let go. I spend a lot of my time in an extremely fractious area of the project that many admins appear reluctant to get involved in. I blow up from time to time and am frequently brusque - perhaps I am just very lucky.
- You mention real life issues below. That's ok. Get them sorted, and good luck in doing so. Wikipedia is not going to disappear now that SOPA is on the backburner. RL affects us all but is something that we - ahem - have to live with. There is certainly more to life than this place. - Sitush (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sitush, your good wishes are truly appreciated. I just noticed your post so I make haste to reply. Frankly I can't recall off the cuff if you and I have had good words or bad, in the past. Perhaps if I explained something, you'd understand a bit of my harsh posture: I'm tired of being followed and lectured by high-horse-riders. DVdm is one of those, and rarely takes time to explain anything calmly. When he is wrong, he quietly finds a way to make me go away- as occurred here. As that editor and I have a history, well, things went berserk this time round. But you know, I always generally admired DVdm. I think that fact went to DV's head and here we are. You mention edit summaries. Honestly, I can't make out what it is that makes you cringe. Is it honesty? I don't lie and don't leave summaries blank like many editors do. I also don't hurl accusations for the most part. It's funny: too many editors think the edit summary bar means the talk page. That is how edit warring begins. Again, thanks for stopping in and offering encouragement. Please don't jinx it anymore by saying "Wow, took long enough!" --Djathinkimacowboy
- D, as a bystander who has often been somewhat bemused by those comments of yours that I have seen, I am actually surprised that you have gone this long before receiving your second block. I admit to only seeing bits of what goes on but, well, I thought that I was aggressive at times, but your stuff is way beyond mine. Take the block, have a think and perhaps just turn down the volume a notch? Even the summaries that accompany your regular clearing out of this talk page make me cringe a little sometimes. I am probably not the best person to say this but the phrase "make haste, slowly" comes to mind. Best wishes. Honest. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Reply to user Sitush
Sitush, it is fine with me if you were to post examples of my past faux pas. It would be a learning experience for me- but only do it if you're prepared to explain what impression each reference makes. I will not argue the point. It's a real pity other editors close their eyes and ears... I am prepared to listen to honest criticism. One more thing: be careful not to take out of context. By all means, quote away, but not out of context. Cheers a lot for your good luck wishes. We'll be wanting it.--Djathinkimacowboy 01:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Reply to "As promised"
- There is no need to evade your block to communicate with me, I am watching this talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes rash actions toward editors like me force us to evade blocks just to get some words out.
Know this: I regret my bad behaviour. At least I admitted it somewhat openly. A vacation will do me good, I can't beg for your reconsideration of the block, but then, I think none of us behaved in an exemplary fashion.
What I wish to state here is that I do not believe the editors involved are sock puppets.
What I had actually said was they looked like it to me- there was no further accusation nor did I threaten them with action. Then again, they did not exactly comport themselves too well either, and I admit they angered me beyond control.
Much pain in my family life shoved me over the edge. My question to you is, What is everyone else's excuse? Editors as well as admins ought to step back and look carefully before leaping. That didn't happen here at all. As to the original question that was between me and DVdm, I was correct and DVdm was not. If I state that openly, that is not edit warring nor is it anything else. As for accusations of violating 3RR, they are empty as well.
Anyway... see ya in a week! Got work to do in the real world.--Djathinkimacowboy 01:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course, cannot sign off without explaining the mess
Unlike most editors, I am willing to be talked off the ledge. I try to acknowledge when I am in the wrong. If you care to examine Fedora more closely, the lead says "fedora" is a generic term. It mentions the trilby as a type of fedora, but it has its own name, which is "Trilby". In that context, "Trilby" should be capitalised. It is a name.
DVdm disagreed and referred me to WP:MOS or wherever. Seeing the point, but also seeing I am right, I contacted DVdm also using a quote from the Wikipedia page. DVdm did the typical thing and got red in the face- and that, after edit warring with me at Fedora over this.
Had we continued our discussion over this edit disagreement, which we both escalated into a conflict, we'd have been OK. The example I was heading toward was the pope. One never capitalises "pope" unless it precedes a pope's name or is used in the same sentence about a particular pope, referring to that pope. As with president (of the U.S.), we do not capitalise it unless we say, "President Obama did X, Y, Z," or unless we say, "President Obama did X, Y, Z... and then the President leaned over the railing."
You get it? "Trilby" in this context is like that. In other cases it need not be capitalised but I think that's a matter of consensus. No one in their right mind will go to the talk page of the Fedora article. That is a shame and that is how edit wars begin.
Instead, DVdm and friend accused me of WP:OWN and I made a crack about sock puppetry. Threats flew like chisels in the air. Now this.
Tell me, talk page followers, was it all worthwhile? For me it was: I defended myself from editors who don't understand what WP:OWN really means.--Djathinkimacowboy 01:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Unblock request
Djathinkimacowboy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Request appeal be considered. Request revision by another administrator. Though this situation was entirely my fault- due to my aggressive position regarding an edit- I feel that I have shown and continue to show general fairness in conflicts. I request a review because I do believe this block, or at least its length, is excessive. Naturally I reacted in anger after the block, but I have no intention of returning to stir up new problems. My main issue, and my anger, was with one editor only. My belief is that editor will cool off, then will feel more reasonable. If that is so, and with my assurances above, I think I can be trusted to have a week-long block at least reconsidered. If refused for good reason, I will not appeal further. May I address the reasons for the block as expressed to me by the administrator: "battleground approach, edit warring, baseless accusations of sockpuppetry after warning to stop". The 1st accusation is true, insofar as my approach to the situation was a 'battle-ready' approach. I regret this action. The 2nd accusation is understandable but I must protest it. I did not engage in any activity that differed in any way from any other editor in a similar situation. The 3rd accusation is based on an angry remark I made to two editors involved. They were angry, but I submit that these unacceptable angry expressions are not sock puppet "accusations" and I stopped immediately after I had expressed myself once each to the two editors. It seems rash in view of all this to impose a block of a week. I acknowledge my loss of temper and incivility; it is a struggle for me that I usually don't manage so well... but I try.
Decline reason:
You were blocked for your conduct, so your argument that the block is no longer necessary as the other editor "will cool off, then will feel more reasonable" isn't relevant - please see WP:NOTTHEM. I've restored the messages concerning this block which you removed before asking to be unblocked per the normal convention, and they seem to indicate that you haven't given up the confrontational attitude which led to the block. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Understood. Also I appreciate the restoration of the page, it should be there. I'll remove it when the block has expired. One thing: so sorry that since my grammar wasn't perfect enough I am accused of being confrontational. It appears WP does not like people who tell the truth. Whilst I work at being a better editor, I'll remember that being a better editor involves veiled points and hypocritical language.--Djathinkimacowboy 20:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sitush, now you have lost me. It seems I just can't post a goddamned thing. Do you know what I see here? Entrapment. It's classic. An editor gets confronted, gets in trouble, defends himself and here come the admins and even people like you. You all yell, "You're confrontational!"- and then I get punished for being "confrontational". What it really is amounts to my trying to defend myself, and I'm damned no matter what. That is what I see. You, all of you, want to see "battleground" behaviour stop? Then stop making WP a battleground in the first place.--Djathinkimacowboy 21:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- One humble request: I ask that the present confrontationalism
(especially you, Sitush)be stopped. There's no point in anyone rubbing salt in my wounds. And you say I'm confrontational! Just leave my page alone whilst this block plays itself out. You've all proved your points.--Djathinkimacowboy
- "I'll remember that being a better editor involves veiled points and hypocritical language" This was not entrapment. You intended to insult other editors. You posted it of your own free will. The point obviously hasn't been proved when you then accuse others of entrapment. My response, and other's responses, to you have been good faith efforts to demonstrate to you why you got blocked so you can change that behavior. Your responses to us have been to try to level the playing field instead of accepting constructive criticism of yourself. Just because folks have been critical of you doesn't make them confrontational. You need to accept the good faith criticism, learn, and avoid the behavior in the future.--v/r - TP 21:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Well I have tried. What more is it you want from me? TP, you quote me out of context, missing my point as most people do, and you do it when the posts are right here for anyone to read! You say I "intended to insult" other editors. Stating the truth is not an insult. I have made a challenge over and over: prove me wrong. Diffs showing me losing my temper do not constitute proof.
I have apologised to so many people here in the last 3 months it's all I seem to do. Then someone chases me all over again- what's the first thing that results? People dredging up my "confrontational" attitude and my past faux pas. I even get offers to have them shown to me so I can "learn" from that.
What is that other than a set-up or an entrapment? I can never prove that I'm trying my best, that I AM learning (slowly). And I get angry, irritated people like you coming here and lecturing me further when I asked everyone to refrain.
You all have one thing in common: 'it's OK' for you to post as you like, but not for certain others. TP, what did you come here to say! That I'm stubborn and I don't get it. That was very nice of you, you are all showing how well you assume good faith from me.
In fact, few of you ever assume good faith from me. Go lecture someone else, some excessively young and gullible editor. I don't take kindly to bullies or take crap from kids.--Djathinkimacowboy
- By the way, I've studied very closely the block appeal advice of WP. What does it say? "Come crawling on your knees, confess, be contrite, say three Hail Marys, do not point the finger." It's the Spanish Inquisition. Well, my Jewish soul does not take kindly to that. If that's "confrontational", then I am "confrontational". So I'll live while I'm blocked, it won't kill me. And hopefully, you'll quit coming to get smarmy and sanctimonious here.--Djathinkimacowboy
Sitush comment. Reply to editor Sitush
- Look, I am really sorry that you feel as if you are somehow being persecuted here. I can, however, assure you that this is not the case. In fact, your own words indicate this: "I have apologised to so many people here in the last 3 months it's all I seem to do". I remain pretty certain of the good faith in the things that you do but, well, sometimes we have to accept that those things (or the manner of them) are wrong. That sentence of yours is an indicator: if you find that you are having continually to apologise then you are most likely doing something wrong at a quite fundamental level. We all make mistakes. I doubt very much that anyone who has contributed here in the last few days would admit to always getting things right. What is frustrating to me (& probably to others, although obviously I cannot read their minds) is that you really do not seem to be understanding that we work as a community - if a fair few people are suggesting that you need to amend your tone, and you stand alone against that, then the chances are that they are correct. At least in the context of Wikipedia, at any rate. No-one who has contributed here over the last few days is "out to get you" but things are likely to deteriorate unless you can demonstrate some understanding. How about we start by dropping the combative edit summaries? That is an easy thing to do - just say "reply to X", "comment on Y" etc. K.I.S.S., at least for now.
- I do not want to see any good faith contributor leave this project. That includes you. But you have to meet people halfway & sometimes accept that in the context of the project, you are 100% "wrong". Shit happens in life. The skill is in how you deal with it. I really do think that what ever the real life issues may be, perhaps it is best to sort those out as best you can because they could be affecting things here. We all have them, we all have to deal with them and, as I've said previously, WP will still be around. Again, I wish you well. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Your post is appreciated. My mind and my views are not in good order right now. Your post is, however, understood in full. My hope at this moment is not to incur anyone's wrath, which I have been doing with every post. So: my apologies for that. My plan is to rest (as I am able) during this week. As an act of respect I will be monitoring my talk page and replying to anyone who posts.--Djathinkimacowboy
A reply to Floquenbeam's earlier query
May I add something:
Am I correct in remembering that you have been told before not to make unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry around? I'm pretty sure I remember this being a problem earlier in your editing career here.
--this is from Floquenbeam. No, you are mistaken. Completely mistaken. I'd like my reply to you to be on the record. No sense in creating a false impression and I would be remiss in not responding directly to you.--Djathinkimacowboy
(edit conflict)While I have stricken an unconstructive post, let me say it contained a message I certainly deserved. The past is supposed to remain in the past, but since I have learned from what I have done and see what I'm doing wrong even now, I admit that I acted like I owned this whole place. Well, no more. Even someone like me can learn a new way!--Djathinkimacowboy 20:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Help required
Permission to strike and delete MikeWazowski's useless and taunting post above? Or is that not a kosher thing to do? It is clear why I want to strike that and I will strike my reply to him as well. Anyone may see those diffs, I don't care because it is well known. I do not welcome Mike or his posts, and of course he already knows this. "Just take the block and learn from it." And I get lectured for battleground thinking!--Djathinkimacowboy 20:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)