From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Here is the discussion originally from my talkpage regarding my disagreement with MONGO and to a lesser extent Newyorkbrad, Chacor and Ryulong. 1.1 Trolling 1.2 ANI 1.3 Frivolous checkuser request

[edit] Here is the discussion originally from my talkpage regarding my disagreement with MONGO and to a lesser extent Newyorkbrad, Chacor and Ryulong.

[edit] Trolling

I removed tour troling comments from the noticeboard. this looks like an obvious comment from a troll, so best to not continue with this pattern if possible.--MONGO 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I can't reply on your talk as it is protected. I have re-added my comments RE:Guinnog as your justification for their removal is weak at best. I've added a diff to point observers to what you removed - I'm sure that will suffice to show your objections to what I have said. Although I very much doubt that my comments could be called tolling --I'm so special 10:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:3RR...thank you very much--MONGO 10:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You too, and WP:IGNORE - I've brought up our little pointless dispute on the noticeboard. I would advise you that it's highly innapropriate to remove comments that oppose you. Wait for an admin to do so --I'm so special 10:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This must be a sock account since you seem to know so much about links and other issues...I guess if you can remain unblocked for 3RR I'll have to get a checkuser run on your account...as for all I can tell, you know nothing about me or Guinnog and based on your request to have the aforementioned trolling account unblocked, your entire purpose here appears to be for disruption.--MONGO 10:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

Thank you for your note alerting me to the centralised discussion of my interaction with another user. I appreciate it. --Guinnog 07:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, your block seems to have expired anyway. This edit seems to be the problematic one; personally I would always WP:AGF with (apparently) new users, but I personally am certainly not going to open up the whole thing again! Thanks again, --Guinnog 12:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you move on from the affair, as I will attempt to do. Everyone makes mistakes, and sometimes it is good to just forgive others theirs, acknowledge one's own, and keep on going. Best wishes, --Guinnog 12:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frivolous checkuser request

Your request for checkuser concerning Chacor and MONGO was frivolous. These are well-known editors who have been active here in different content areas for years. There was no valid basis of any kind for your request. Please do not do this again. Newyorkbrad 16:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My reply to this highly wierd warning as copied from User talk:Newyorkbrad

Hi, not attempting to sound aggressive but what gives you the right to decide who and who not to allow checkuser requests on. I am relatively new here - which I think is in a way a benefit, as the behaviour of other editors in the past, both good and bad, does not affect my judgement. I therefore decided to request checkuser on Chacor and MONGO for the reason that they edit similar content areas (nature) and frequently vote together. I had suspicion and followed protocol. You cannot criticise me for that. The amount of time an editor has been here should not and does not change how policies apply to them. I suggest that you do not continue attacking other editors for following policy, simply because they question older editors. There is absolutely no Wikipedia policy or guideline that you can cite to challenge what I have just explained. However, I do hope that we may have a constructive working relationship in the future. Thanks --You have been blessed with a message from I'm so special 16:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Responded on my talk where I saw this first. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)