Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FleetCommand (talk | contribs) at 13:53, 16 October 2014 (→WP:BRD: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dear visitors: I am officially retired, but even after retirement, I discovered that I cannot stop visiting and (once in a blue moon) editing it. So, if you post a message here, I guarantee neither reading it nor taking action on it.

Apology

So, a while back you said some words against AussieLegend that I found to be objectionable, because they showed up suddenly in my watchlist, I thought them mean-spirited, passive-aggressive, and a variety of other this-and-thats that are probably no longer relevant. I felt strongly against your words in the moment and wanted to clearly send a message that as a fellow editor I didn't care for that sort of attack against another editor. It was not my intention to demean you as a person or to demean your contributions, so if you interpreted it as such, that was a failure on my part. That said, I would like it if we could move past these superficialities and get back to normal civil discourse without any lingering prejudices, because vandals are our usual enemies, and we treat them with far more civility than they deserve. Both you and Aussie have contributed tons, so as a show of good faith, and with the hope that whatever existing fires can be quenched, I apologize to you for my irritated and sharp comments. Respectfully, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad regarding your close of Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad. Cunard (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Do you not understand WP:BRD? When you make an edit that is reverted in good faith, don't revert. Instead discuss it on the talk page. If you do not revert your recent edits and start discussing, I will have to take this to a more appropriate venue. I left an edit-waarring warning here recently so you are well aware of the ramifiations. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: ...except that it was discussed already and you didn't obtain consensus. Instead, you condescended to judge five admin whom you've never even seen. Oh, and let me remind you: I came to your talk page first, instead of even reverting. I will have a discussion if you stop being a bossypants, don't stonewall and don't lie.

Yes, the memory of your threat burns vividly still. Fleet Command (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You are concentrating on one very, very small portion of your reversions. Changes to the table were not discussed, nor were the heading level changes or moving around content. You do not have consensus for these changes. The matter of failed verification has been thoroughly rebutted without further opposition, and even Codename Lisa said "find a different word", which I did. But you reverted again. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes to the table. I did a B. You partially reverted, especially the scope part. That's an R. I consented, matter closed.

As for the verification failed, didn't I just say don't lie? She said "He clearly doesn't dream of disputing his four-feet-tall daughter while he does not hesitate to scare off Leonard. Find a better word if you wish; verification doesn't fail." And there is a second lie in that: "Some" was a B, a bold edit. It is R'd, reverted, on the basis that "some" implies some failures existed; that needs source. Fleet Command (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)