User talk:Barfly99
Dear, TuckerResearch (talk)
See below -
Stalker : Psychologists often group individuals who stalk into two categories: psychotic and nonpsychotic.[3] Stalkers may have pre-existing psychotic disorders such as delusional disorder, schizoaffective disorder, or schizophrenia. Most stalkers are nonpsychotic and may exhibit disorders or neuroses such as major depression, adjustment disorder, or substance dependence, as well as a variety of Axis II personality disorders (such as antisocial, borderline, dependent, NARCISSISTIC, or paranoid). Some of the symptoms of "obsessing" over a person may be characteristic of obsessive compulsive personality disorder. The nonpsychotic stalkers' pursuit of victims can be influenced by various psychological factors, including anger, hostility, projection of blame, obsession, dependency, minimization, denial, and jealousy. Conversely, as is more commonly the case, the stalker has no antipathic feelings towards the victim, but simply a longing that cannot be fulfilled due to DEFICIENCIES EITHER IN THEIR PERSONALITY or their society's norms.[15
User:Barfly99
- User:Barfly99, I don't object to you calling me names. If it makes you feel better to call me a stalker and a psycho and a narcissist, knock yourself out. Call me any damned thing you please. What I do object to is you altering what I wrote or falsely attributing writings to my name. That's objectionable. And, dear friend, as to the above, motes and beams, pots and kettles. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear, TuckerResearch (talk)
You object to me calling you names but you have no problem doing the same thing yourself in your very first contact with myself, due to me correcting an article about David Fasold. If you don't like people highlighting your arrogance then it might be an idea to address the way you talk to strangers. Calling them a troll for a correction you agreed to is pathetic. Reporting them for highlighting it, is even more so.
Barfly99
- I wrote above: "I don't object to you calling me names." "I don't object to you calling me names" is the exact opposite of "You object to me calling you names." And like I said, call me whatever you want, and I'll talk to "strangers" however I want. As I said above, I object to you altering and falsifying comments made in my name, that's all. And, all I tried to do on your talkpage was point out a contradiction. So please, keep calling me names. It's fun. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
TuckerResearch
I was having fun at your expense since you decided to be arrogant and rude for only reasons you yourself know. I'm sure it's not the first time it's happened to you and it will no doubt not be the last. I also haven't called you any names. I've only copied and pasted text relating to stalking since you seem to be exhibiting all the symptoms (some of which I highlighted). You however, came straight out of the gates with the insults. Sorry to have to keep correcting you but you seem to be a bit lost.
Barfly99
- Keep calling me a stalker, now arrogant, rude, and stupid (since you have to keep "correcting" me, I must be unintelligent). That's fine. Name-calling is fine by me. (And I admit I can be rude.) I can apologize for not assuming good faith in questioning your status as a troll, but can you apologize for altering and falsifying comments in my name? Or will you just continue finger-pointing at me? TuckerResearch (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Tuckerresearch
So you admit you were rude for no apparent reason. Not sure why you're apologizing since you have made clear that you'll talk to strangers however you want. Your attempt at an apology could use some work as well. Would it not have been easier and more concise to just say "sorry for calling you a troll for no reason?" instead of the vague, almost begrudging, effort that you felt the need to insert links into. Very sincere and heart felt it wasn't.
If you don't like people taking the piss out of you then don't antagonize them.
Barfly99
- (1) "Taking the piss out of you" must be a Britishism I'm not familiar with. From context I guess the American equivalent would be: "take you down a peg." (2) I admit to being rude with apparent reason. Your three edits to Ron Wyatt and David Fasold, two separated by months, is the very definition of a single-mindedness on your part. I was questioning that and, indeed, questioning your e-mail contact with Don Patten, as I have direct e-mail evidence to the contrary. (And, your misspelling of Patten as "Patton," though a common spelling, had me doubting you too.) (3) That said, if you had been rude to me under my original comment on this talkpage, I probably would've laughed at it, or engaged in witty witless banter as we are doing now. You could've insinuated I was coming on to you, a stalker, rude, dumb whatever (as you did), and I would have replied and we would have had a hell of a time. All of that, I'm fine with. But what you did, altering my statements and falsifying others, is considered vandalism on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Talk_page_vandalism and Wikipedia:Vandalism#Sneaky_vandalism). That's all I really have a beef with. (4) I'll continue to be rude and antagonistic, you'll just have to get used to that. (5) My apology is sincere. If you choose to not accept it, fine. ¡Adios! TuckerResearch (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- PS - I have removed Patten from the page Durupinar site as well (see diff) because there is no reliable source (see Wikipedia:Sources). And, if you are indeed interested in "arkeology," I do look forward to constructive edits on the various Noah's Ark pages in the future. TuckerResearch (talk)
TuckerResearch
"Taking the piss" means directly having a laugh at your expense. Always a good antidote to those that take themselves a bit too seriously. It was done for personal amusement and not for mutual appreciation. Also I didn't realise there was a hierarchy of Wiki contributor based on the the quantity or subject matter of their edits, and that those who contribute less frequently are held in derision by those who's life appears to revolve around it. A bizarre concept but one you seem to be proposing. If you want to have a witty debate with someone you might need to work on the wording of your introductions. You wouldn't have fallen prey to the dreaded Wiki Vandalism had you exercised a little restraint and some common courtesy. Never seen anyone being proud of being rude and antagonistic, but at the same time offended by someone retaliating by mocking them. You seem to have some bizarre personality disorder.
As for Arkeology. I prefer to call it pseudoscience. Always fun debating the small band of creationists who believe Ron Wyatt was a god sent Inianna Jones, when in fact he was a compulsive liar and a fantasist.
Barfly99
- Now I know what "taking the piss means." Thanks. There is a hierarchy in Wikipedia, as much as they try to deny it; and there are vandals, trolls, and sock puppets too. Both just as there are in any community. I propose nothing: I explain. And if you were intending to amuse yourself, I can tell by your tenor and demeanor that you probably amuse yourself much of the time because nobody else will do so. And I am courteous to those who deserve courtesy.
- And I agree: Ron Wyatt was both a compulsive liar and fantasist. And you are apparently the expert on personality disorders. So you'd know. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Tuckerresearch
Looks like someone needs a hug.
You propose nothing: You're living proof.
You are discourteous to those you don't know.
I am an expert on personality disorders as it's been part of my profession for the past seven years. I could give you my diagnosis on you if you like. It's not too damning but it might help you cope with confrontational social encounters a bit better. You should have a scout around the web and look at few forums that deal with social anxiety and it might give you a few pointers on why you try so hard for acceptance. Hiding behind a keyboard is only going to exacerbate your problem and make you increasingly dysfunctional amongst those who's acceptance you really crave. You're welcome.
Barfly99
- Ha. Laugh riot. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
December 2013
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- You can of course delete this. If you change it in any way I will of course block you. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting you tolerate name calling but don't tolerate anyone who responds to it. I'm not sure about yourself but I wouldn't accept being directly insulted by a stranger in my everyday life and subsequently am not prepared to accept it on an internet site. I may have went about it in the wrong way but I did it for the right reasons. If someone is rude and condescending to me in person I would respond in the same humorous way rather than come down to their level. I corrected an article in good faith and got called a "single-purpose account troll" by Tuckerresearch despite the fact he agreed to the edit. Again I apologise for breaking the rules, and next time I receive an ignorant message from a fellow Wiki user I'll deal with it in the appropriate manner.
Barfly99