| Revision as of 01:52, 12 June 2014 editResolute (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,508 edits →Et tu?: Am I really supposed to believe that?← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:06, 12 June 2014 edit undoKwamikagami (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors475,464 edits →Et tu?Next edit → | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| :How in the world is that "harassment"? I thanked him for breaking from his usual pattern of disruption and making a substantive contribution to WP. He had engaged in yet another mindless edit war (though I didn't call it that). This time, however, he apparently thought better of it on his own, and made an intelligent edit. It was an edit to push his POV, which contradicts the majority of WP, but at least it was rational, and as long as he's rational it's possible to have a rational discussion. I know he's capable of this, but usually he doesn't bother, preferring rants, personal attacks, and straw-man arguments to actual discussion. It was nice to see that he resolved this on his own, without pages of vitriol. — ] (]) 01:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC) | :How in the world is that "harassment"? I thanked him for breaking from his usual pattern of disruption and making a substantive contribution to WP. He had engaged in yet another mindless edit war (though I didn't call it that). This time, however, he apparently thought better of it on his own, and made an intelligent edit. It was an edit to push his POV, which contradicts the majority of WP, but at least it was rational, and as long as he's rational it's possible to have a rational discussion. I know he's capable of this, but usually he doesn't bother, preferring rants, personal attacks, and straw-man arguments to actual discussion. It was nice to see that he resolved this on his own, without pages of vitriol. — ] (]) 01:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::Uhh, yeah, no. One who is truly thanking another does not rely on snarky, dismissive and backhanded statements like "thank you for making an intelligent edit" and "I knew you were capable of it if you tried". If that is how you intend to "thank" editors in the future, I would suggest you are better off saying nothing. ]] 01:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC) | ::Uhh, yeah, no. One who is truly thanking another does not rely on snarky, dismissive and backhanded statements like "thank you for making an intelligent edit" and "I knew you were capable of it if you tried". If that is how you intend to "thank" editors in the future, I would suggest you are better off saying nothing. ]] 01:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::Granted, it is difficult to keep out the snark, since he's such a bad-faith editor (or paranoid, or whatever his problem is). But I was genuinely glad to see him address a conflict by making an intelligent/rational edit for a change. — ] (]) 03:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:06, 12 June 2014
| Your comments may be archived here after 48hrs |
Word/quotation of the moment:
- Keep Redskins White!
Previous:
- "homosapiens are people, too!!"
- Spaghetti Weevil
- "I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law."
- awkwardnessful
- anti–zombie-fungus fungus
- "Only an evil person would eat baby soup."
Nepal Bhasa
You have no right to change the name of the language.
PUA
- Deleted the refs as not needed and not worth fixing. — kwami (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Carbon
I think you might be able to answer a question posted at Talk:Carbon#Greek name origin. CorinneSD (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sbreheny is correct, AFAICT w/o a ref handy. — kwami (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Verbal case
Hi, Kwami. Are you still interested to expand Verbal case? I don't know whether this treats a notable topic, or it lists loosely related concepts in the manner of WP:Set index articles. Cnilep (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I won't have time to get to it anytime soon. — kwami (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I guess it'll have to stay on the back burner. Cnilep (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Et tu?
I would be most curious for you to explain to me why you should not be blocked for trolling and harassment if you choose to bait Skookum like this again in the future. Resolute 13:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- How in the world is that "harassment"? I thanked him for breaking from his usual pattern of disruption and making a substantive contribution to WP. He had engaged in yet another mindless edit war (though I didn't call it that). This time, however, he apparently thought better of it on his own, and made an intelligent edit. It was an edit to push his POV, which contradicts the majority of WP, but at least it was rational, and as long as he's rational it's possible to have a rational discussion. I know he's capable of this, but usually he doesn't bother, preferring rants, personal attacks, and straw-man arguments to actual discussion. It was nice to see that he resolved this on his own, without pages of vitriol. — kwami (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Uhh, yeah, no. One who is truly thanking another does not rely on snarky, dismissive and backhanded statements like "thank you for making an intelligent edit" and "I knew you were capable of it if you tried". If that is how you intend to "thank" editors in the future, I would suggest you are better off saying nothing. Resolute 01:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Granted, it is difficult to keep out the snark, since he's such a bad-faith editor (or paranoid, or whatever his problem is). But I was genuinely glad to see him address a conflict by making an intelligent/rational edit for a change. — kwami (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)