User talk:76.202.59.116

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Righto

You can blank this as well if you like. Wouldn't it be easier to get a user account? JHMM13 02:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV reports

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. — coelacan — 05:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, you may want to just skip to {{uw-v4im}} sometimes, it makes a lot of vandals stop immediately and then they don't need to be reported. — coelacan — 05:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korea Wikiproject

Hey anon. user. I don't know why you removed the template that I put on.

Do you know what the template is for? To indicate that a member or more of a particular wikiproject is keeping an eye over the article. That the Virginia massacre has nothing to do with Korea is your opinion, and that it does have something to do with Korea is mine. But that's not the basis for the reasoning of putting a wikiproject template in that article. Like I said, it's to indicate that the article is under the project's oversight.

If it's not our business, sir, we'll make it our business. It was very rude of you to remove the template. (Wikimachine 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

You might want to check out WP:Assume good faith before you post another inflammatory remark such as this. If your opinion differs from mine, then discuss it - don't try and bully someone by saying "we'll make it our business." That's not what Wikipedia's all about. --76.202.59.116 05:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Sheer arrogance. First thing you do is write "please assume good faith" in 3rd person. ??? If you read my comments with good faith, then there would have been no need to assume that my comments were not written in good faith. Also, I hope that you log on to your real account to make settlements on these matters. I really don't like anon. IP addresses telling me what to do. (Wikimachine 18:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC))
You are making some awfully big assumptions about someone you've never met. I'm not sure why you can't find a way to be civil here. The reason that your template was deleted was that I was cleaning up unrelated vandalsim on the Virigina Tech page. The information about the shooter being Koren had not yet made it to the local news, and it appeared to be non-sequitar. If you don't belive me, take a gander at my contribution history for that evening.
As you can see, I have not re-reverted this. I would have apologized for the error had you simply said "Not sure if you're aware, but the shooter was Korean... that's the connection." Instead though, you decided to blow your top and take it personnally. You assumed that I was being "rude" and targeting you. Your subsequent replies reaffirm the fact that you don't seem to know how to interact with other people here.
Really... please... read through WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks and m:Don't be a dick. There's a reason that they are there.--76.202.59.116 19:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, arrogance re-affirmed. Instead of discussing about the acceptability of the Korean template in the Virginia Massacre, you simply removed the template & then instructed me to read the good faith guide.
Well, if you studied logics , an argument remains 100% applicable if unchallenged. I brought the arguments above, and you have not given reasons why they are not true. Then they have 0% risk that they are not true. Then, you can't remove the template. (Wikimachine 18:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC))
If you hadn't noticed, we aren't having an argument over the content. You are getting all mad over an edit that you feel was malicious (rude), and I'm telling you to chill out and not assume everyone's out to get you.
And, for the record, your timeline's a bit off bud, I (incorrectly) removed the template, you threw a little temper tantrum on the talk page, and THEN I told you to be civil. I have not re-reverted this back.
The reason that I was editing as an anon is because I was cleaning up vandalism at the time. I do have an account and have contributed to a number of pages. I figure if a vandal is going to vandalize a talk page in retaliation, it might as well be an anon talk page.--76.202.59.116 19:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh, keep making leeways out. That you were not arguing over a content proves that you made all of this civility junk up because I was arguing over the content & you suddenly came up with the please read this and that little child. Well, use your real user account. Theres chance that another user who reverted my edit was you, after all. (Wikimachine 20:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

I checked on who removed my addition. Abe Lincoln? Im sure that if s/he wasnt you then s/he would have talked to me on the template issue himself/herself. (Wikimachine 21:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

No, I didn't check your history b/c I didn't see that you asked me to. Specify where I put a remark inflammatory enough to make you put that please be civil comment. (Wikimachine 02:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC))
I don't know why you're willing to go that far into this argument... this is an anon account & mine is a registered. It's most probable that a registered account will try as best as possible to shift blame on an anon account b/c anon account has nothing to lose.
Anyways, I'm sorry if I put "If it's not our business, sir, we'll make it our business. It was very rude of you to remove the template" and that made you mad, but I still think that this is not something upon which you can place the please be civil template. "It was very rude of you to remove the template" already assumes good faith in that I expected you to apologize. (Wikimachine 13:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC))
I don't think that most of what you posted were personal attacks or ill-faithed comments. (Wikimachine 16:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC))