User talk:Sotaman

Proof of bluffs in the Montevideo area

Definition from Dictionary.com: "a cliff, headland, or hill with a broad, steep face." I see these all the time up and down the Minnesota River Valley. In fact, a collapsing bluff threatened a historic cemetery in Milan, Minnesota, which is just a few miles from Montevideo.[1] There you go. In black and white from the AP. Unless, of course, you think that the bluffs magically disappear around the immediate Montevideo area. Jinxmchue 05:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and yes, that is a bluff along the Chippewa River, which is a tributary to the Minnesota River that joins the Minnesota in Montevideo. Jinxmchue 15:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are disruptive

Please stop or I will report your rules violations. This could lead to your being blocked from editing on Wiki. You don't want that. I don't want that. Jinxmchue 14:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comments on User talk:Jinxmchue

With regards to your comments on User talk:Jinxmchue: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. diff -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 16:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I issued sarcasm, not attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotaman (talk • contribs) 10:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are "bluffs" in Montevideo, then there also are mountains and dragons, and pixie dust. I suggest you snort less of the later.
If you want to lord over something, go back to your Dungeons and Dragons games, or go kick a dog. Beyond that, I will assume you are as impotent as your feints of authority.

Please see: this, as well as this. Also, please note that removing appropriately given warnings from your talk page does not make them "go away"; but it does make you look rather guilty. Please don't delete such warnings in the future. -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 16:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- yeah, I tried to go back and delete those parts of the comment, after your original warning. I didn't understand how some of this stuff works, regarding my own talk page. I also don't understand what makes Jinx's threats a "warning". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotaman (talk • contribs) 10:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you removed some of your more incendiary comments from Jinxmchue's talk page; thanks for that. I will say that what is left is still rather uncivil (not hugely, but the teeth are there), and such exchanges will only escalate the problem between the two of you. I'm not going to involve myself with your edit war, I'll just say that a civil discourse on the talk page of the article in question is the preferred method for solving such issues, not a user talk page flame war.
I don't see a threat in what Jinxmchue posted above; in fact, it's quite the opposite. Maybe he should have used a proper warning template, but he isn't saying that HE will block you, he's saying that if you continue the revert war, you'll be in violation of policy, which will lead to you being reported to WP:AIV or WP:ANI, and possibly eventually blocked.
Thanks for correcting my spelling. Heh.
One last thing; please sign your posts like this: ~~~~; it creates your signature and dates the comment.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c 16:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the bluffs along the rivers are "precious" to me

It's a piece of factual information that should not have been removed simply upon your own say-so. That's not how Wikipedia works.

Per your comment, "factual information" appears to be subject to the eye of the beholder. I see no difference in your adding the term per your "say so" and my removing it, based on mine. I instead, recommend you check your "holier than though" attitude, and take a dose of your own unsolicited advice.... it also, is not in the spirit of wikipedia. sotaman 14:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, unsolicited advice is commonplace on Wiki. So is being civil and taking it good-naturedly. BTW, since when do two people = "so many other Wikipedia users?" Jinxmchue 19:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, factual information most certainly is NOT "subject to the eye of the beholder." See, Wikipedia has policies called "verifiability" (WP:V) and "reliable sources" (WP:RS). These policies are designed to prevent users (e.g. you) from adding material based only on their own say-so. You really should familiarize yourself with Wiki policies and guidelines and stop being so hostile to friendly suggestions. Jinxmchue 19:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking liberties by saying that your statements are "factual", and that you used "reliable" sources. One man's (mine) river bank is another (yours) bluff. And you add bluffs, based largely on your own "say so". That said, I left your silly fantasy about bluffs in my more recent edit... and yet, still here you preach. My expertise in the subject of Montevideo is probably greater than (or at a very minimum equal to) those obscure web sites you found. Again, take a dose of your own advice. sotaman 19:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your personal, self-proclaimed "expertise" means jack-squat here. The sources I cited (including the dictionary) are, unlike you, neutral and reliable, and the re-inclusion of the term is not based upon them. Your removal of the term was based on nothing, as is your accusation that I am the "troll" who supposedly edited the sources to include the bluffs. Your attitude is grossly and offensively uncivil (see WP:CIVIL). Please be aware that there are consequences to violating Wiki policies. I've tried to reason with you and explain the Wiki policies and guidelines in a civil manner. My attempts have only been met with hostility and insults. Again, perhaps you need to look in the mirror. Jinxmchue 20:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary explains what mountains are too, but that doesn't mean that there are mountains in Montevideo. The web sites you linked to, are hardly authoritative. That you would even add the word is based only on your "say so". I've been sarcastic to be sure. But that you consider it hostility or insulting illustrates that you can't be trusted to accurately assess other definitions, such as what a "bluff" is. I'm done with this conversation, mostly because I'm tired of your crude, rude bullying tactics. Feel free to consult your own mirror. I'm sure there, you'll find the definition of asshole. sotaman 20:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)