User talk:Bladestorm/Nonsense

Please cooperate with other editors

What in the world are you doing in the wii article?
First, what part of "Discuss on the talk page, but you need to cite something good if you're going to accuse Nintendo of lying. That's POV-pushing and unverified." did you not understand? Especially the "Discusso nt he talk page" part?
We'd gone through quite a bit of an argument over how to phrase things, and came up with a compromise that was eventually settled on. Then, somebody broke it without realizing, so it got reverted.
But now you're breaking it again. And yet, you're outright ignoring your indisputable obligation to provide a reason for making a clearcut definitive statement that's directly opposite nintendo's. If they say they aren't competing, and you want to outright declare that they are, then you need to cite it. Otherwise you're pov-pushing at the very least.

What's more, you further removed the addition to the reception section.
Well, which is it? Are they outright competing, in which case properly-cited article showing that the Wii is outselling the PS3 is very much notable, verifiable, and accurate? Or are they not directly competing, in which case you had no right to modify the opening of the article.
Of the two pieces you removed, you can only remove one and still be remotely neutral. But if you insist on declaring that nintendo is a liar, and directly competing, then you can't also remove any information related to that "competition". In any event, I'm reverting both edits, but discuss it on the talk page if you want to deal with this further.
I'm tired of people breaking compromise/concensus, and ignoring "Discuss on talk page" notes. Bladestorm 15:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all I highly suggest you take a breather. Second, you apparently only reverted the "on some level" edit rather than both edits despite your claim to the contrary. This "on some level" dispute is very minor, and technically me and Mr.bonus are correct that all that is needed to know is that it competes with those consoles. Apparently you believe further discussion is required for this, so I will request comments in the Wii talk page. Dionyseus 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Watch it.

• "Second, you apparently only reverted the "on some level" edit rather than both edits despite your claim to the contrary."

That's seriously bordering on a direct accusation of me having lied. Look at the version of the article that you quoted there. You'll see that Hongshi's added text isn't found in that version. The most accurate description, I suppose, would have been, *ahem*, "I am reverting your edit in a way which still maintains the prior reversion of hongshi's edit, such that both changes will effectively be reverted", but that's a bit of a mouthful.

You sure do have a lot of nerve, telling me me to "take a breather", and then saying crap like, "despite your claim to the contrary" in the very next sentence. I suggest you look up the guidelines on civility, assuming good-faith, no personal attacks... am I missing any? I know I sound surly. I don't give a flying crap. The next time you're going to accuse me of lying, read the bloody version you're commenting on before doing so. Bladestorm 22:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take your own suggestion of reading the guidelines on civility. I will not tolerate any further outbursts from you on my talk page. Dionyseus 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not tolerate being called a liar on any talk page. Bladestorm 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What the...

Did you just delete my question as though I never asked it?
I was asking a serious question. I really wanted to know how in the world you could make that kind of mistake?
Because either it was, or it wasn't a mistake. If it wasn't an honest mistake, then you intentionally violated copyright law, and presented someone else's work as being your own. But that doesn't sound like you. If it was a mistake, then I really wanted to know your reasoning.
But just deleting my question entirely, without the slightest bit of acknowledgement?
Sometimes I really don't get where you're coming from. Sometimes, you seem to be acting entirely in good faith, interested only in making the articles better; in helping in any way possible. Other times, you accuse people of lying (without ever apologizing when confronted), treat established editors like newbies (which, of course, is disrespectful), make the most bizarre of copyright mistakes, and entirely wipe out people's questions.
Are there actually two people using your account? You and your kid or something? Bladestorm 22:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all the image was an honest mistake caused by my misunderstanding of the image policies, I thought that by retouching the image I can call it my own, but I know now that I was in error. I included the original creator's name and the source, and I stated that the purpose of the image was for educational purposes only, so I don't see why you're accusing me of bad faith. Second, I've told you before that I don't like your tone, and I don't appreciate you making false claims against me, unless you can provide diffs proving your accusations I would very much appreciate it if you would apologize to me. Dionyseus 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  Do I really specifically have to use only diffs? Wiki's being a pain in the butt today. But you can scroll up a bit to see one example. I did a revert to an older version of the wii article that had neither your change nor hongshi's change, and you accused me of only reverting your edit ("Second, you apparently only reverted the 'on some level' edit rather than both edits despite your claim to the contrary."-Bolding added by me). That was an accusation of my having lied. It was false. You never acknowledged that fact. (And the fact that the overall content dispute was about your ignoring discussions on the article's talk page, and pushing unsourced POV statements twice certainly didn't help)

  Treating me like a newbie was when you were harping on me about signing talk pages. (I was indicating my username, instead of pretending I was a regular anonymous editor. I would've wanted any comments/issues to be brought up on my real, static talk page, associated with my actual username, rather than having comments left on a dynamic ip address's talk page, to be forever lost. It was my understanding that signatures were intended to identify the editor. You probably thought I was being overly sensitive on that one, but using a generic newbie template on any talk page, when it's intended for an established editor, can be taken as... (what word fits best? condescending or patronizing?) Again, no diffs, but just look at your talk page's archive, page 4. Your final justification was "Calm down sir, I have thousands of articles in my watchlist, I cannot possibly read the entire contents of every talk page, I did not know you were not new to Wikipedia." The catch is, if you don't know if a person is new or not, then you probably shouldn't just assume that they are and treat them as such. And if you see that a person is directly identifying themselves with a username, you should tend to assume that's their username. For reference, scepia eventually had a problem with how I was identifying myself as well. Thing is, he didn't treat me like a newbie, and he actually left the comment on my talk page.

  I don't think I need to provide a diff for you making bizarre copyright mistakes; as I was referring to the topic of this discussion. Removing a copyright tag from an image isn't the same thing as creating it yourself. Did you really think that if I were to somehow edit out all the microsoft logos from Windows, then I could suddenly claim that I created it? If I cross out an author's name from a book, can I say I wrote it? Of course not. And I think making the assertion that you can certainly qualifies as "bizarre".

  And, um, do you need the diff illustrating you removing my question? *sigh* I guess I can provide that one. Here you go.

  Also, I never accused you of acting in bad faith. I made only two assertions which could be construed as being related to good/bad faith:

  I said that, if you weren't making an honest mistake with the image, then you would've been misrepresenting yourself (but that that didn't sound like you), and that if you were making an honest mistake, I really wanted to know how you came to believe that you could do that. (It really was an honest question. Sometimes people get ideas that seem crazy until you hear their reasoning.)

  As for the image itself, it wasn't just that you had "retouched" it (although I'm not sure that removing copyright notices really counts as retouching). It was that you (once again) used a template stating, "I, the creator of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy..." The fact that you stated that it was only to be used for educational purposes doesn't change the fact that you explicitly identified yourself as being the creator of that work. And there's no getting around it. And I think it was fair to ask you how you came to believe that you were, legally, the creator of the work. (again, sometimes people have ideas that sound crazy until you hear their thought process.)

  The other statement I made relating to good/bad faith was simply that you normally act in good faith, with only an interest in improving articles and helping. But I'm going to assume that you didn't find that part offensive. (If you did find some part of my phrasing of that part of offensive, then I really may have made a mistake in communication)

  As for my tone, the last time you admonished me for my tone(actually, it was for my "outbursts"), it was because you didn't like how I took it when you accused me of lying. If I insult you, I'll certainly not complain if you don't reply with a sunny disposition.

  Did I miss anything? Because I really do want to address all of your issues. I don't want you to feel like I'm making unfair accusations or anything. And can you see why I'd be a bit peeved if I asked you a question, and you just deleted it? Heck, even a "screw off" would've been more polite than just pretending I don't exist. Bladestorm 23:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Again I believe I was correct when I said that you only reverted one change despite your statement to the contrary, I believe you are misunderstanding how the diffs work. As for the signatures, you must always sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes, I told you that and you went into an outburst against me. As for having removed your comment from my own talkpage, I removed it because your comment seemed very inappropiate to me. As for the image, I told you I made a mistake. I told you I listed the original creator and the source, so it's not like I was trying to claim I had invented the image myself. What else do you want me to say about it? Dionyseus 00:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll address diff's first: By "diff"s, you refer to the "difference" view that shows the result of an edit (whether it be to an article, or to add a comment to a talk page), correct? When I added my last comment to your talk page, wikipedia was behaving very wonky for me (has been for the last few days, even across a couple computers). Even when I wanted to add my comment to your page, I couldn't even edit just the section for the conversation; I had to edit your entire talk page altogether. I assumed (hoped?) that if your comments were still on your own talk page, or in your own archive, then I could just refer you there, rather than isolating the specific point in time in which you made those comments. If, however, I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'diff', then please tell me now, because I don't want to make that mistake again.

As for your claim that, despite my "statement to the contrary", I only reverted one edit, this is all I can say:

Here are three consecutive versions:

1. This version has hongshi's addition indicating that the wii greatly outsold the PS3.
2. This is your version, making an unsourced claim.
3. This is the version I changed it to. Note that neither your change nor hongshi's change made it into that draft. That is, the material of his that you wanted out stayed out. The change that you tried to make also stayed out. That is, both changes were discarded in the end.

I really don't know how to make that any more clear than I already have. Do you understand it now?

As for signatures, first off: It is a guideline to include signatures, not a policy. This indicates something that you should do, not must do. Don't say that I "must" do anything. You're wrong. Still, I still take guidelines very seriously. They help people accomplish things far more smoothly. However, for such instances, I tend to look at the spirit of a guideline, rather than the letter. (I could cite the "ignore all rules" thing, but since it isn't a mandatory rule anyways, that'd be kinda pointless. And, either way, wikilawyering never beats the actual intent of a policy, guideline, or anything else.) The point is to identify who you are. I refuse to sign something twice. That is, for any given comment, I won't sign as bladestorm and as an anonymous id.

• I'm never going to do "~Bladestorm - 127.0.0.1 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 1 April, 2006 (UTC)" And, seriously, I should hope you'd never expect me to. I suggest you read: Wikipedia:Signatures, to see the line, "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Such an insanely long signature would defy common sense.
• The only option is to choose either "~Bladestorm", or to use ~~~~ for a dynamic, anonymous ip address that I'd never have again.

So, what's the point of signing? According to the guideline, "it also facilitates discussion by helping other users to identify the author of a particular comment, to navigate talk pages, and to address specific comments to the relevant user(s), among other things." So, let's break that down, shall we?

1. "facilitates discussion by helping other users to identify the author of a particular comment"-Using my username better identifies who I am than a random number that will soon be assigned to someone else.
2. "to navigate talk pages"-Well, if people want to leave me a message, then they need to know that my username is Bladestorm. Any notes left on an anonymous ip's talk page will only be visible to me for part of a day. My talk page cannot be reached or determined by an anonymous ip.
3. "to address specific comments to the relevant user(s)"-Well, nobody can reach me at an anonymous ip. On the other hand, even if I can't log in, I still check my actual username's talk page occasionally, and I can actually log in when I'm at home or in my office.

So then, unless you can prove all three of those points to be wrong, my way is better. Unless my username doesn't identify me better than somebody else's random dynamic ip address, and unless people shouldn't be allowed to find my talk page, and unless people shouldn't have the option of addressing specific issues/problems with me... my way was better.

And all the misrepresentation of policies and wikilawyering in the world aren't going to change that.

As for the image... well... I'm assuming that's the best answer I'm going to get from you. In that I won't. You never answered if you truly believed that crossing out someone else's name on a book and writing your own makes you the creator.

And as for your declaration that you never claimed to have created it... PLEASE READ YOUR OWN WORDS AS I'M ABOUT TO OUTLINE THEM:

• "I, the creator of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts."

See that? When you refer to yourself as the creator of this work, you're saying that you created that work! How can you possibly interpret that any other way? Please don't even bother replying at all unless you're willing to say how "the creator of this work" can possibly be interpreted as anything other than "the creator of this work".

As for what I want... frig, screw it. I tried. You misrepresented rules. You tried covering up a good-faith question, treating me like I didn't even exist. And you even had the nerve to ask for an apology when you were the one who insulted me. There's really no point. Bladestorm 01:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the meaning of diffs. Those links you provided are not diffs, the first link's diff is this, which I reverted and I also edited out the unnecesary statement "on some levels" , and then you reverted only one change, mines. Clearly you reverted only one change. As for signature, -Bladestorm is not satisfactory, anyone can type that, that's why it's necessary to sign with the four tildes. As for the image, you never asked me if I believed that "crossing out someone else's name on a book and writing your own makes you the creator," the answer to that question is of course no, and if you are insinuating that what I did with the image is similar to that I would strongly disagree because I included the creator's name and the source. I have already told you that it was an honest mistake caused by my misunderstanding of the image policies, please accept that. Dionyseus 02:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, I give up... there's no way to reason with a person who refuses to read. I never called those three links "diffs". I called them versions. Perhaps I should have called them "revisions", but I never called them diffs. The only thing I called a 'diff' was this link. Is that a diff? Yes? Gee. It sure would've helped if you'd read what I said.

On the subject of actually reading what I've said, just for ha-ha's, take a look at the other discussion topic you copied over here. "The most accurate description, I suppose, would have been, *ahem*, 'I am reverting your edit in a way which still maintains the prior reversion of hongshi's edit, such that both changes will effectively be reverted', but that's a bit of a mouthful." The short version is to leave the article in a state wherein both changes end up reverted. That isn't grounds to imply that I'm lying. That's uncalled for.

As for the signature thing, if you refuse to acknowledge my three specific reasons, or even the wikipedia guideline on signatures (which you misrepresented as a mandatory rule/policy), then there's little I can do. You chose not to address my arguments. I followed, in every way, the spirit of the guideline. I presented the most ideal case for "exceptions", which are explicitly allowed in the guideline.

Again, on the subject of reading before you argue, just hit Ctrl+F (or I think command+F, if you're on a mac), and search this page for "book". See that? Me asking you if crossing one's name out and replacing the name means you can claim that you created it? Hmm... You just said I never asked that... and yet, there it is... weird... Either you didn't bother reading what I wrote, and accused me of lying (or being very much incorrect) about what I'd said... or... wait, what's the other explanation? I asked it. I told you I asked it. You still insisted I didn't ask it. It's irrefutable that I did. See why I want you to read before arguing? No matter how small the issue is, it's always irritating when someone explicitly states something that they'd know was false if they bothered to read, think, and then type.

And I don't feel like arguing about what you did or didn't think you could do. That's beside the point. You made a legal mistake, big frigging deal... But declaring that you never claimed to have created something when you used the words, "I, the creator of this work" is annoying, to understate the problem.

You make statements that any rational person would know to be false.

You contradict yourself. You did claim to have created it. You then claimed that you never made that first claim. Look, you screwed up. People screw up. I screw up all the time. But I don't claim it never happened. I never deny saying things that I've said. And I sure as heck don't deny saying things when it's still visible for anyone to read.

Again. Just leave it be. Fact is, unless you actually address what I'm saying, you're just arguing at me, not discussing anything with me. Any further comments on the subject that ignore what's already been said will be treated as vandalism. Accusations (whether you meant to yet again imply that I was lying, or simply that I was wrong; in a case where anyone capable of simply reading a bit higher up could see that your words were undeniably false), arguments that refuse to address a single bloody thing I've said, and throwing out wikipedia guidelines the second you realize they disagree with you certainly isn't intended to further the 'project'. It can't possibly accomplish anything other than raising my blood pressure. If you suddenly decide to start discussing for real, then I can't stop you. But, frankly, I'm really not interested. And, again, anything that ignores what's already been said, ignores wikipedia guidelines (which you somehow invoke, and yet refuse to read for yourself), or that involves accusations against me that any idiot can readily prove to be false, will all be deleted.

I won't bother asking you more questions on your talk page. If you break anymore copyrights, I'll just add it to the list of copyright problems. If you ignore any more pleas to "discuss on talk page" before you try to add unsourced POV, I'll simply treat it the same as I'd treat any other vandalism or edit-warring.

Between the two of us, we've already gone through well over 3,000 words bickering back and forth, without a single bloody thing accomplished. Bladestorm 03:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I never wrote the words "I, the creator of this work", that's a template, which I already admitted was my mistake caused by my misunderstanding of the image policies. Dionyseus 05:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)