User talk:FakTNeviM/Archive 02

A cheeseburger for you!

FaktneviM (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

FaktneviM (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I really appreciate the barnstar you gave me. It was a pleasant surprise and very thoughtful. 72Dino (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion (nomination of WwCSGHa)

Category:Wikipedians with Celtic,Slavic,Germanic,Hebrew ancestors, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me. I replied there and waiting for others consideration. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see my reply to your comment at my talk page. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved

Thanks!

It was a pleasant surprise to wake up to another barnstar! I'm not sure what it was for (but probably related to my non-breaking-spaces hunt, I expect). Thanks :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly!

I am also happy you´re glad from the technical barnstar. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing others' comments

Please note that it is generally not appropriate to modify other editors' comments on Talk pages, including striking out what another editor has written. Obvious personal attacks that only attack another edit with no relevant discussion of article content can sometimes be struck out or deleted. However, this does not apply to words or phrases that you simply consider to be uncivil.--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If some editor behave unproperly, should we tolerate that? All, who participated on that, should be ashamed, of course. Motives of BlackCab was simply contempted to at least 2 editors. Another uncivil-like comments from me and B Fizz. However, my own comment was not uncivil, but rather sort of unproper humor. Others rather showed their disrespect to other project members. Very sad you agree with this nasty behavior. I did mistake, when I gave the teamwork, in fact civility-like, barnstar to you. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you use uncivil undone? this is marked as deleted edit like from vandals. I have right do same way as you did. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change, because you should not have made the change to other editors' text in the first place. It is up to the original editor to retract comments that are merely 'uncivil'. In the context of 'uncivil' comments, it is only if there is an obvious personal attack that is not relevant to discussion that any editor may delete material. The relevant guideline states: "Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. ... Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial." My reversion of your improper editing does not indicate specific endorsement of any other editors' comments. However, there is a high degree of subjectivity in what you deemed to be 'uncivil'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refactorizing

Should I call to admins for refactor those ´weasel words´ a little bit with WP:RTP, WP:CIV, WP:AGF ? I could also refactor it with other ways, because strike off is not only way to do RTP. I carefully read that talk page again and I still think discussion started to deal with environment of wiki-stress due beginning personal attacks, disrespect and vile behavior WP:WQT. especially between project members WP:JW. It was like two-sided war, in which you - Jeffro77 and BlackCab permanently offend others saying all their arguments are irrelevant or using any other of ridiculing tactics. It is not first time I felt it. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you (a) grow up; (b) get over it; and (c) focus on discussing content of articles rather than dwelling on talk page comments. You have admitted you made certain comments as a "joke", trying to "upset" me and provoke a response. You got it. Now just move on. BlackCab (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typical response. Could you also say moreover I am irrelevant and absurdity will be perfect. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note

If you liked to keep such statements in the ´public article talk´, do as you wish. I will not to protest anymore.

My attitude that those words were inappropriate everyone can read it. If you disagree, I will not continue harass my personal values and mental peace with it.

This could be marked as "end" and my "giving up".

Have a nice day.

Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2700+ Chess GM´s

Methods for comparing top chess players throughout history

What is the reason behind your ranking? A rating of X is a rating of X. There is no need in listing shared ranks as unshared (and before you come up with the inflation argument - it doesn't matter as you still rate X higher than X-1...). And Kramnik's top rating was 2809, not 2811. See the ref. Can you show me the games which gave him that two additional points? The 2811 on the FIDE chart is a mistake (see FIDE lists). P.S. In the individual calculations, Kramnik has "no games" in January 2002, so he could have impossible gained two points there http://ratings.fide.com/hist.phtml?event=4101588). --Alexmagnus2 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexmagnus2. I known your ref, but it was wrong.

Kramnik played 4 games and achieve 2811 ELO in January 2002 and maintain in April 2002 with 0 games played. Official FIDE here. I have my own personal MS Excel sheet with internet-automated-updating with macro. There are stats including all published FIDE ratings list since start of using ELO system in 1970´s. Those 79 players over 2700 rating includes some players ´before-ELO´, but was calculated backwards with system of Arpad Elo. (=Don´t worry. Not by me!). Regards. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which 4 games? And why are they not in the individual calculations and respective FIDE lists (the additional 2 points appear in the FIDE lists after April 2003 though). I just want to clear up this mystery, once and forever. And what's with shared ratings?--Alexmagnus2 (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not bother yourselves about nonsenses. He just played 4 games as you see in my ref. Not 2003, but 2002. FIDE have problem with several their pages. Sometimes they just fault. If is it mystery for you, that some (rather many) big international organizations have mess in their documents, I have rather mystery if some organization do not errors. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today´s problems

Something 1

I have repeatedly requested that you restrict your comments to article content. I have repeatedly indicated sources supporting the material I have posted. If you continue your personal attacks by calling me 'extremist' or by placing false warnings on my Talk page, you will be reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Jeffro77 removes your comments then please respect their wishes (per WP:REMOVED). Continuing to reverting them can be seen as uncivil and risk in being blocked for edit warring/disruption. Bidgee (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just found that different rules is applied for Jeffro´s wishes and another level for respect of my wishes. This type of mock encyclopedia and type of mock cooperation is so disguasting and I´ll rather end of my editing on Wikipedia at all. This unfair atmosphere is just get tired me. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor removing notices from their own Talk page (permitted, see WP:UP#CMT) is not the same as an editor modifying the text of another editor's comments (generally not permitted, see WP:TPO).--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original editor was asked for that. I want to hear from him what mocked is in this encyclopedia, if editors have NOT responsibility to respect others wish in each one´s personal wishes. Rules, which even allowing ignorance of other wishes. Oh, well. Just mocked community with false people, in general. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something 2

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, such as the ~~one~~ several you made to User talk:Jeffro77‎, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. -danjel (talk to me) 02:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop talking with such annoyances without invitation. I have no interest to read incomprehensible and reasonless messages like this. What edit is problematic for you? Do you have right to enter inside personal discussion of two editors? Call you someone? If not, please take us continue resolve our issues and do not mock your interest here. Thx. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk: Jeffro77, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I strongly suggest that you stop talking with User:Jeffro77. If you make one more harassing post, I will report your behaviour to WP:ANI.

Furthermore, do not edit my content, per WP:TALKNO, for example the heading of this section. You are free to remove this section (per WP:OWNTALK), but changing what I write is simply not acceptable. -danjel (talk to me) 10:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop harrashing me. You was not invitated to our discussion. I don´t know what you still trying. Stop writing me messages and just leave me alive. I don´t want to react on this inappropriate interference inside othes interview. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No edit war, just other misunderstanding of me

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Danjel. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please cease your disruption on both Jeffro77 and Danjel user talk page. I've warned you a few days ago along with warnings given to you by both Jeffro77 and Danjel. Continuing your behaviour will see you reported on WP:ANI. Bidgee (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave me alone. Another and another people talk to me, if I not asked for anything. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct is subject to a report at WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal Attacks, Harrassing Behaviour, inappropriate warnings and inappropriate use of Twinkle by User:FaktneviM. Thank you. -danjel (talk to me) 11:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you read my thoughts, what I want to say you about your perpetual uninvited interference. Thank you --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click this link. Reply to the points raised there. -danjel (talk to me) 11:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I will not clicking on anything what I want no to click. Why do you still harrashing me and just don to leave me? You several times revert me hard and don´t at least read, what I tried to say you. You just repeatedly disturb me. I have no idea why still interfere to me and moreover - uninvited! --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to make this simple (hopefully)

User Talkpages are for communication with another editor, and are to be used for that purpose

Talkpage discussions should therefore be polite, yet still within rules
A user has effectively full rights over their own talkpage, within reason
If a user removes something from their talkpage, it is a sign that they have read it - never re-add it
The policy on edit-warring applies to repeated re-adding on someone else's talkpage, which can lead to a block

Does this help? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But still I have no idea what is about all today craziness by others. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop using this stupid and uncooperative atmosphere. I have fully enough this mocking friends here. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the challenge, FaktneviM...you're saying that others are being uncooperative, whereas your interactions are coming across as extremely uncooperative. You accuse others of provoking, but you do so in a provocative manner. You accuse others of being uncommuncative as you are being a poor communicator yourself. Wikipedia thrives on a collegial atmosphere, and your own actions have been challenging enough that, although a few editors have tried to help you, you respond by attacking them. I do encourage you to stick around and add your knowledge to the project ... bear in mind the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is my accuse to others is FACT! Nothing more. Nothing less. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just realize that main reason "TODAY´s Problems" is ´fabricated case´ against me (like in 1950´s by communist party to some people in Czechoslovakia). "Someone" of here ´just want to force me away´. I want to solve last one (private only issue with Jeffro77) and later finally start to enjoying my wiki-vacation, (what I first reported on Czech Wikipedia in 23th July). Other administrators just annonying me. You at least listen to me and response. Well, at least ONE normal person exists here. Thx. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Unfortunately, the list of your edits show that the case is not wholly fabricated. You posted something on someone's talkpage, they removed it. You re-added it, they removed. You re-added it ... to what purpose? When they removed it the first time, it was an acknowledgement that they had read it. By re-adding it as you did, you were edit-warring, which is not permitted. Looking through all of the interactions, nobody is trying to force you away - people merely want you to edit collaboratively, following WP:CONSENSUS, and being mindful of the rules of engagement. I do wish you a pleasant holiday, and I hope you take some time to reflect on the fact that this is the internet - we're all basically anonymous, and there's nothing here worth getting angry or upset about. If you become angry, sign out and go for a walk! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But where is the problem? That is the main question. I am sure all starts, when ´first of long line of admins´ beginning talk to me and even interfere to my talk page (first impertinence), and interfere to Jeffro´s talk page (second impertinence). (= talk still "was", and still "is" in normal order. We are not in a quarrel). Since that time another and another persons threaten to me and people like Danjel and few others are not willing at least read my response on their threatens and repeatedly reverting in hard way (if I am vandal see my global history before today´s problems, .... 6 deleted edits from more than 600 edits // and now about 6 new from these strange people ) .... + my messages (rather questions) for them was civil (reversely from their vile immediately reverting without response). --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be very glad and thankful, if You help me in solving current situation and delete all today´s actions against me. Including all reverts (I did two as well in situation after bad mood from others actions). I am afraid today´s progress, but all problems starts, when other people starts to interfere. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have already clearly explained one of the problems of (edit-warring. I know that your primary Wikipedia site is not the English one - you need to be aware that the rules there are different than the rules here. It's also possible that you do not understand the difference between a threat and a warning. Regular Editors like you and administrators may use warnings to try and guide a user - they are not threats, they are usually sincere attempts to advise you of the rules so that an administrator does not have to take action. Indeed, you were advised this morning that there is a discussion about your actions at the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents ... this is serious, because it means that people's attempts to guide you appear to have failed, and they are looking for an admin to assist - possibly by blocks. Trust me, admins typically do not fall for fabrications - we look into edit and contribution histories. I'm here because I saw the thread, and also am trying to guide you, rather than take immediate action to further protect the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I quite understood your explanation of differences. However, from my point of view, I want only 2 possible solutions. (1) I will be freed of all actions, when was done against me ... OR ... (2) I will rather fully stop of all editing here forever. .... For me, This unkind situations are like "insults" on my "honor". I really can´t see anything other, what could fully satisfied my feel in this catastrophic scenario today. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77´s help

What about your "insults" on my "honor"???

From Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses:

"As I said you should learn more and be sincere and deep. Not frivolous as you are."
"Yo are not so clever, as me and as Lighthead, but you´re not fully stupid as well. I am quite sure you are able to catch it (after long and many times re-trying, if you will be hard on yourself)."
"In fact, you have no interest to have it better. You are smug and self-satisfied. You couln´t try to simulate good will. Everyone knows you have not."
"If you are not smart enough to catch meaning of "STOP", so what?"

From my Talk page:

"[Template:uw-npa3] [Template:Uw-advert2] [Template:uw-socialnetwork] [Template:uw-delete4]"
"Your´s and BlackCab´s user pages are much more preaching (=in fact, propagandistic and hatred)"
"There is huge difference between your hypocrisy, frivolous nature, public loathing on me and others, and between my own attitude, what is greatly reverse than yours."
"Well, your ´innocent´ userboxes could be for someone hardly offensive, uncivil, hatred, lofty and other very bad things."
"Your page is just hatred and pride. Point of problem is in that you criticize me about activities in my personal user space, while yours and others ´User Page´ are bombing with propaganda, spreading hatred thoughts and intolerance. But not only userboxes. All your edits are so."
"You are just used to releasing this attacking point like secular humanists and fanatical atheists do very often."
"Previously you was disrespect, mocking, haughty, lofty Englishman. Now, you finally ´try to´ (and not still lazy as previous) at least. Wow!"
"Very nasty example of your nature, allowing and even recommending public spying on private."

I don't want to hear about "your honor".--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for cleanup of that as well in the talk. All unproductive edits. However, in communication between us is hard to call something as productive. You still ´lead your system´ and I have no chance to achieve even marginal success in solving things, what I consider important. You still lead your system of talking in which I am not able to achieve even such marginal obviousness! like keeping my privacy away from public. You still attacking with all possible ways you have. In such despair situation, these words are very easy. Moreover. Should I enumerate also your reaction on this cited sentences? And tone of contempt you talking about my and other believer´s opinions. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia subpage that you misused for chat is not a private page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not ´substitute´ megaphone about that in all places, it could be relatively private.

Your disgusting and impertinance bahavior still continue. As usually.

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FaktneviM ... the above is wholly inappropriate behaviour on the English Wikipedia, and I recommend you use <s> </s> to strike it out. Please note that ALL pages on the English Wikipedia are the property of the project, and there are no private pages, or even private discussions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about his comments? Should I enumerate that? I am always in despair, because he just not listen even in ONE marginal wish. How about solving other issues. He is like stone. I please him for something and he still lead his system. Still looking for another excuses for not to do it. // I can´t do strike-out that comments, because he really looks like so I described. Moreover, every time, when I did strike-out, he did not the same. Is my honor endless? He should do somethin as well, or not? My all trying were unsuccessful, because when I strike out, he did not! --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to strike out other editors' comments. I'm not aware that you've struck out any of your own inappropriate comments. Nor am I aware of any comments of mine that are in response to comments you have since withdrawn.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. For example in ´WikiProject talk page´ and several times also in ´article talk pages´. However, I rather refactorized my comments "immediately" or "after I recognize it as bad". Refactorizing is much helpful, because strike-out is ONLY strike out. Everyone can still read it. So it´s not any kind of apology or effort for better. Strike out is still uncivil. But, you did not never. I did. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bad comments you made are still bad. You have refactored some comments at different times, but usually for changes in grammar rather than retracting inappropriate comments. Striking out comments is the accepted method according to Wikipedia guidelines, and is not considered "uncivil".--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I did it several times due respect to others. However, after time here in Wikipedia and communicating with certain editor, I had to give up my efforts for doing good. Because experience is clear. He did not nothing well-minded to me in all 3 months since my registering in the WP:JW. He was always same nature as he currently is. There is no good-doing from his side, so I stopped trying my efforts for good as well. Yeah. That is the result of communicating with people like him. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia consider strike-out as well-enough, so I don´t. I have higher standards and my own understandings how people should be to each other. I have no interest if Wikipedia rules seems good to you. For me is too less. Strike out is still uncivil. And your ´standing on literal meaning´ is worse, than explain that in the way of ´spirit of the law´. Your rigid literal thinking is misleading, because you persistently forgot on spirit of laws. (Same situation is in case of "reverting" which I consider as insults of other and hate using it in all cases - excluding clearly intended vandalism .... and Yes, I used that in few cases due my bad mood from behavior of others. But never, because I simply want to be evil on other people.) Standards of Wikipedia, on which you rigidly staying have rather ´sense and spirit of the law´ --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe faster solution how to be free of that is reverting at least 30 good edits and I will be blocked very soon. Since that. I will be free of this mocked encyclopedia and mocked friends. You will be very glad from this. I know. But I will be much happier, because I will free again from this Wiki-time-lost. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to one diff of a brief recent section of your Wikipedia 'chat' page which was directly related to a misleading statement you made at article Talk which constituted a failure to disclose bias within the article's scope. Only after you complained that it was a 'private' chat, I linked the page at User Talk to indicate the subpage that was being inappropriately used for chatting. There were a total of two links, not "in all places"; there were specific reasons for linking them, and those reasons had nothing to do with invading your privacy.

You do not need to reply, as you are not being constructive. I think you should take your wikibreak. If you think you may be blocked, maybe you should think about why.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can´t take my wikbreak as long as you delete all mention about that link. My long expected break since 23th this month and I can´t. Just always someone slowing me, becuase he is not willing to do even ONE kindness. All his reactions I take as bad-minded. If I at least saw some good will, but there was no. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum

I call for an apology from ´this user´, which reverting me in hard way several times, and don´t even read my messages. Look on that carefully. And tell me after that, if I was ´the bad´. Take a time and Read my messages and Read his behavior. (from history of revision).

Moreover. Similar behavior was done ´by other admins´. (See my own talk page). They can´t even communicate with me and tell me what I did wrong. Where are my rights? Am I fully under their domination control of evil?

(Only exception with BWilkins, who tried to understand to me. + He helps me also understand better, what is recently happen. He had at least an effort).

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After Long Time in the Future

--Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

Based on what I have read on this talk page and the WP:ANI thread, I'd like to inform you that there is a procedure called Right to Vanish that allows you to walk away from many things about your account. Please do not take this as a threat or anything hostile. I am simply trying to help out. Best of luck in your endeavors Hasteur (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just read it. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Yeah, we can exchange emails. Alright then; hope to hear from you! Lighthead ^þ 20:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I read everything; I was going to say something bad about somebody (not you of course) but I think that everybody has their big snout in your talk page. Don't take it personally, there's a lot of people here on Wikipedia that don't know how to deal with people. In 5 years I've dealt with so many different kind of jerks you wouldn't even believe. But yeah... we can talk through email. Lighthead ^þ 21:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually learned this by accident; but the best thing to do is to not get involved too much in one wikiProject. There's certain people on each one that just take over, and don't give anyone room to breathe. I think you know who I'm talking about in the Jehovah's Witness WikiProject... shh! Don't say the name! Lighthead ^þ 21:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I'm awarding you with this barnstar for dealing with people who don't know how to deal with people; and who furthermore don't make any attempt to learn how to deal with people. In other words, stuck up people who while they may get credit, don't deserve it. You're better than them. Lighthead ^þ 22:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are people who think that man can solve his own problems; but we've been given about 6,000 years to do so, and what have we shown for it (if these people believe that we've existed for more than 6,000 years than they're not helping their cause; in this sense). Only Jehovah has and will be proven faithful to past and future solutions. Just a thought. Lighthead ^þ 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar. It is absolutely first time, what someone even noticed, that my overall history on Wikipedia was concerned on Welcoming, Helping, and for tries for good things in general, and not about quarrels with WP:JW editors, which both sides apparently after realize as unproductive. In fact, this is first, when someone awarded me! and at least search for my motives. If you could see my face now, you would see crying emotion, so I am, in fact, glad you couldn´t see that, you know. I´ll start up some e-mail account too. Some really new for that purpose. And write to you there soon. Thanks again. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome. And you know, these people don't understand why we're giving them an attitude. They don't know that we're dealing with mental illness; for all they know a relative of ours or our dog could've died. And furthermore, they don't care. But Jehovah's watching all of it, and they don't realize that they're missing out on a great opportunity. Lighthead ^þ 00:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. If we have perfect health, or at least normal one, things could be much easier. Never mind. There is, no doubt, one sureness for that. (Isaiah 33:24). It doesn´t matter if someone believe in that or not. It´s not believe, but something more. Although it´s not path for everyone, as Jesus said (Mathew 7:13, 14). If will be so easy as some churches falsely teach, so almost everyone, or even all mankind rescued. But from Jesus´ words - Who will live? --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthead, did you read this? Intentionally long heading and perfect examples how Wikipedia works as whole. It´s quite funny. However, I have full respect, because it´s authority here on Wikipedia. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I read everything on that page; pretty much everything on such and such person's talk page; and.. I'm not sure if I read everything on your talk page, maybe, but I can't remember. You know but that's how all these rules have us on Wikipedia; all uptight. That's why some people take their aggression out on innocent people like you. I've been close to starting fights with people here on Wikipedia, but thank goodness nobody ever complained about me. I've been fortunate because, even recently, I got into it with an administrator of all people. He could've complained about me. But I'm glad that he didn't. What I hate the most here on Wikipedia are people who revert your edits like if they're experts; and they're the biggest fools around. Yeah, Uncle Wiki is a well functioning unit... yeah right! Lighthead ^þ 01:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read everything on your talk page. It's better if I don't say anything. Not about you, of course. Lighthead ^þ 01:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I didn´t expect you read it all. I should give you some "excelent reader barnstar" or sth. like that. :) --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also quite afraid of many mine expresses to them in the ANI, and to someones from ´former WikiProject co-editors´ like e.g. Jeffro77. I had despair situation and very bad mood yesterday and days before with certain editors were so ´heavy´ as well. But still, I now reveal, ´I did many fails too´. Yeah. I used ´expresses´, but all was truthful. Still I think so ... Problem is, in despair mood I am usually even more critic, than normally. Because others don´t know and no care about my illness, they just see, ´I am scathing´ and that even worse the communication.

However, as a comparative with the practical way, in a wait for an apology from others like Danjel, it should be inappropriate to reveal my afraid, when acts of him and someone others (not all) were much worse than all my expresses since my wiki-registration together. Even in situation, when I currently don´t know about saying whatever, which was not truthful. Generally, experience is clear. My several efforts changed nothing. In fact, that´s got even worse, as you see in topics like Editing others' comments. Despite ´good faith edits´, every time someone say stop, you haven´t to ´cultivate´ all comments, only yours. And that is absurd. You do your apology, but no-one other do the same. Refactorizing is still only ´fairy tale´ in practice due Wikipedia´s rigid rules, which do against sense of that recommendations and in experience they even allowing continuation of incivility. Because rigid rules and rigid wikipedians.

Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like I said, they don't know that you're suffering from Depression (or even know that one of the symptoms is irritability), and they especially don't care. And thanks for the barnstar, that was nice.. Lighthead ^þ 02:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthead, you are not helping FaktneviM by telling him that everything is everyone's fault but his. It's self-evident that people don't care about something they don't know about. However, depression should not be used as an excuse to justify inappropriate edits, and it's extremely presumptuous to claim that other editors don't know the symptoms of depression. Other editors could list any number of factors that might account for their own edits that offend FaktneviM. It is unfortunate that FaktneviM has this particular hardship, and as someone who has gone through the same (and possibly worse), he has my sympathy. But Wikipedia isn't a support group, and editors should not have to guess that they need to make special allowances for a particular editor, especially when that editor also cannot possibly 'know or care' about other editors' circumstances.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be calm on him. Do not neither comments of mine situation. Just forget, as I forgot. There are worse things than wiki, there will be even worst something in future perhaps. I just gave you forever barnstar, and I forgave you as Jesus ordered me. There is all good between us. At least from my side. Although I will not a part of project anymore. Just leave me and Lighthead alone. Bye. Really bye. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was just general advice, for your benefit. You haven't been blocked or banned, so you are still able to work on JW articles, but it is up to you. I know things have been difficult for you on here the last few days. It is important that in future you try to work according to the rules for the English Wikipedia, as we all have to. And if you are feeling irritable or in a bad mood, just edit later instead. I wish you well.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrawal from all active projects voluntarily, because I want so. That´s all. Nothing talking anymore. If you do not read my last response in ANI, you could read it. There I wrote some other specifics. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro, ~~I'm gonna couch this in simple terms so that even a so called genius can understand.~~ ~~You are a vampire, and you are also a symptom of everything that's wrong~~ with Wikipedia. FaktneviM had no call to get into it with you, ~~but you had even less to act in such a superior manner as you did to him. Just because you internalized all that black bile~~ that FaktneviM is currently dealing with (and trust me you have no idea what he's going through, cannot pretend to, nor does me, nor anyone know..), doesn't mean that FaktneviM has to as well, ~~and make it turn him into a wretch like you. I honestly hope I never have to deal with you as a member of the wikiproject, because you are without a doubt a vile person.~~ Not to mention picking on someone who's first language is obviously not English. ~~That's it; and I hope you get the point.~~ Lighthead ^þ 03:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: He gave you a barnstar after all he's dealing with. You didn't; nor could you stomach giving him one. Spot the difference? Why believe in human reason when we can't believe in human decency? Lighthead ^þ 03:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YES! Love to Jehovah and my obedience with Christ Jesus is much much stronger, than anything else. You are just new, you are not so mature in being Christian. --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even I learned those ~~core values~~ from watching Star Trek. Lighthead ^þ 03:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthead, you STOP as well. This my talk page. And I am saying to you both! - We´re finished! Otherwise, you could talk to each other in other places. I just have not enough mental energy. STOP, you both! --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archive and Finish

This page will be archived on 1st August 2011 (CET+daylight) specific limit is not known so far - maybe later, maybe sooner that day). WP:RTV --Sincerely ♥ FaktneviM (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]