Jake Fuersturm (talk | contribs) →FYI: + |
→FYI: Response. |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
:::::I thought you said the discussion was over and that you refused to participate anymore in .... a dead issue? I guess not. :P -- [[User:Jake Fuersturm|Jake Fuersturm]] ([[User talk:Jake Fuersturm#top|talk]]) 18:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC) |
:::::I thought you said the discussion was over and that you refused to participate anymore in .... a dead issue? I guess not. :P -- [[User:Jake Fuersturm|Jake Fuersturm]] ([[User talk:Jake Fuersturm#top|talk]]) 18:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::"Then for good measure you added a period to the article" - wow, anyone who think's that's tantamount to a reversion should probably take a break. -- [[User:Jake Fuersturm|Jake Fuersturm]] ([[User talk:Jake Fuersturm#top|talk]]) 18:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC) |
:::::"Then for good measure you added a period to the article" - wow, anyone who think's that's tantamount to a reversion should probably take a break. -- [[User:Jake Fuersturm|Jake Fuersturm]] ([[User talk:Jake Fuersturm#top|talk]]) 18:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::I just wanted to make sure you understand that your role is not one of blamelessness in any "edit war" that you perceive may have taken place. As I stated, I made one revert and then you started an "edit war" topic in the talk page. The history shows this to the be the case, but you say I edited (with Mike) a total of three times. That is simply untrue and I would hate for my advice to fall on deaf ears. Clearly you care about the material. I only hope moving forward you will take a different approach with other editors than you took with me. (Oh, and I didn't include the period as part of your ''four revisions'' and neither did the admin. Had we done so, you'd have had five from 15:23 - 19:54 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spock&action=history]. ) [[User:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533"><B>Erikeltic</B>]]</span> <sup><span style="font-style:italic">([[User_talk:Erikeltic|<span style="color:#337533">Talk]]</span>)</span></sup> 18:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:17, 31 May 2011
Going inactive. I've spent far too much time here over the past while, and the process has become, quite simply, frustrating. Therefore I've decided to take a break from Wikipedia. I may pop up on occasion for a visit. Take care! (If you need to get hold of me for some reason, just send me an email). -- Jake Fuersturm
Ack, sorry, my mistake on the second point, you're quite right. With that said, it's not in my opinion clearly meeting the NFCC either. I'd be happy to restore it and list it at XFD so that we can get a firm decision one way or the other, if you're agreeable to that. Again, sorry for getting the deletion wrong. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC).
- Not to mention that Spock is very much "alive"! :)
- That's cool - I'd appreciate it going through whatever channels/processes it would have normally been subjected to - there was actually a fairly lengthy discussion in progress on the file's talk page, but seeing as how the only two participants were the uploader (i.e. me) and the deletion nominator, I'm thinking we probably need some third parties involved to get a proper consensus going.
- Thanks! -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 07:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Star Trek-Jacob Kogan-Child Spock.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Star Trek-Jacob Kogan-Child Spock.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI
Now that consensus has been reached at Spock, I feel it necessary to point out in light of comments like this [1] that Wikipedia is not a battleground. There are no winners or losers here, only editors trying to work together. Your approach with me was instantly and unnecessarily combative. When I offered you praise and WP:TEA you accused me of "passive aggressive trolling." I was not; I was attempting to reset the discussion to a more civil tone. I strongly suggest that you read WP:BATTLE thoroughly and take it to heart that Wikipedia is a group effort and do your best in the future to assume good faith with other editors before becoming combative with them and turning your position into a competition. Now you can blow me off, you can come back with more non-productive behavior, or you can just ignore this message and miss it for the sincere suggestion that it is. Despite what you may believe I am happy to see such zeal in an editor, but it's important to temper that zeal with the policies that define Wikipedia's success and to remember the subject on which you are arguing. I'm glad you are an editor here and (again) I look forward to working with you in the future. Erikeltic (Talk) 17:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- You suggested that my "... approach with [you] was instantly and unnecessarily combative." [2] I would suggest that this reversion (and the associated edit summary) you posted after I'd already attempted to engage you in the Discussion segment of WP:BRD didn't help. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your very first post about the "Spock principle" was about the impending edit war; you were clearly already ready for just such a thing to take place. I hope in the future you won't be. If you choose to ignore my sincere advice, that is your prerogative. The discussion is over for me and I refuse to participate in any more finger pointing or needless escalations of a dead issue. Erikeltic (Talk)
- My "very first post" was after you and Mike had already posted three reversions ... that's an edit war. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I made one revert at 17:02 28 May, 2011.
- My "very first post" was after you and Mike had already posted three reversions ... that's an edit war. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your very first post about the "Spock principle" was about the impending edit war; you were clearly already ready for just such a thing to take place. I hope in the future you won't be. If you choose to ignore my sincere advice, that is your prerogative. The discussion is over for me and I refuse to participate in any more finger pointing or needless escalations of a dead issue. Erikeltic (Talk)
- You reverted that revert (your second in a row), then modified the article so slightly an admin called it a revert also. Then for good measure you added a period to the article. This took place from 17:20 – 18:04 on 28 May, 2011 and doesn’t include the revert you did to Mike’s edit. Then you started the edit war section in the talk page at 17:26 [3] after you had reverted the article three times, with a borderline case to be made for four reverts. [4] Again, this observation was made by a neutral admin in the bogus 3RR you filed against me.
- It was when I reverted your edit back (my second and final revert) at 19:39 that you accused me of being an edit warrior and violating 3RR, even going so far as filing a bogus report against me which was dismissed within minutes. It was in that bogus 3RR that an admin warned you, not I, against reverting further [5] and wrote that your "understanding of the edit warring policy [may be] flawed." So now that this horse is officially dead and these facts have been entered into the record, I hope you take my advice to heart. Erikeltic (Talk) 17:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I thought you said the discussion was over and that you refused to participate anymore in .... a dead issue? I guess not. :P -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Then for good measure you added a period to the article" - wow, anyone who think's that's tantamount to a reversion should probably take a break. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I just wanted to make sure you understand that your role is not one of blamelessness in any "edit war" that you perceive may have taken place. As I stated, I made one revert and then you started an "edit war" topic in the talk page. The history shows this to the be the case, but you say I edited (with Mike) a total of three times. That is simply untrue and I would hate for my advice to fall on deaf ears. Clearly you care about the material. I only hope moving forward you will take a different approach with other editors than you took with me. (Oh, and I didn't include the period as part of your four revisions and neither did the admin. Had we done so, you'd have had five from 15:23 - 19:54 [6]. ) Erikeltic (Talk) 18:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)