User talk:TrinityAsianCoed
ANI
[edit]Refrain from unnecessary combative commentary and incivil dialogue in communications with others, as you demonstrated here. While the usage of multiple IP addresses and then a new account, whose sole agenda is to escalate non-issues, is frowned upon, this is a legitimate account -- as long as it stays within the bounds of civility and good faith discourse.
Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) so that it identifies your comments with this account. seicer | talk | contribs 04:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2008
[edit]
This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at WP:ANI, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Stop accusing editors of sockpuppetry without any reason other than they happen to disagree with you. roux 17:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, fair enough. I made a good faith, "what-if" accusation of sock-puppetry based on timing and I haven't pursued it. Now my question is, what do I do when I get accused, as you can see below, of vandalism when I CLAIM posts I made anonymously as mine, precisely the opposite of sockpuppetry. Furthermore, I am accused of vandalism by the person whose behavior caused me to get an account because you need an account to complain. WTF? And if you look at the timestamps, this person apparently has some kind of NORAD-like operation monitoring Wikipedia in real time to the point where I can't even claim posts I made anonymously without being accused of vandalism for making that edit. It's beginning to seem like harassment.
- No, you made extremely bad-faith accusations of sockpuppetry. Don't do it again. As for the warnings below, I'm currently talking to NeutralHomer about them. // roux 08:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's called a watchlist. I have the page watchlisted so I know when you post. You have a watchlist too. You should not post anything to the category page. If you have something to say, post to the Talk Page ONLY of that category page. Everyone will see you posts there. The general norm around here is for people to always log in for their edits. Everyone forgets sometimes, but we all try to make sure that all our edits are at least signed with our proper usernames if we forget.
- No, you made extremely bad-faith accusations of sockpuppetry. Don't do it again. As for the warnings below, I'm currently talking to NeutralHomer about them. // roux 08:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, fair enough. I made a good faith, "what-if" accusation of sock-puppetry based on timing and I haven't pursued it. Now my question is, what do I do when I get accused, as you can see below, of vandalism when I CLAIM posts I made anonymously as mine, precisely the opposite of sockpuppetry. Furthermore, I am accused of vandalism by the person whose behavior caused me to get an account because you need an account to complain. WTF? And if you look at the timestamps, this person apparently has some kind of NORAD-like operation monitoring Wikipedia in real time to the point where I can't even claim posts I made anonymously without being accused of vandalism for making that edit. It's beginning to seem like harassment.
- Now, if you stay logged in and don't go back and forth, I will strike the below warnings. But you need to start following the rules. I am not here to ride your back and follow you around, but making accusations that other users (especially admins) are socks of me, accusing me of vandalism myself in an ANI post and posting every post I made in a 24 hour time span is the best way to win over someone. I would stear WAAAAY clear of the Chad Dukes (radio personality) and The Greaseman pages. Any questions? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 28, 2008 @ 09:00
- Well, then, the category page shouldn't allow editing. "Going back and forth between anon and user is quite annoying" I don't know what to say to that. What part of my repeated attempts to claim my "anonymous" posts do you not get?
- "Now, if you stay logged in and don't go back and forth, I will strike the below warnings. But you need to start following the rules."
- I am a big fan of rules. I see that I need to thoroughly learn the rulebook here.
- "I am not here to ride your back and follow you around, but making accusations that other users (especially admins) are socks of me, accusing me of vandalism myself in an ANI post and posting every post I made in a 24 hour time span is the best way to win over someone."
- Did you not eradicate an entire page?
- "posting every post I made in a 24 hour time span" Dude, I wouldn't even know how to do that so you're accusing me of something I never did.
- "I will stear WAAAAY clear of the Chad Dukes (radio personality) and The Greaseman pages. Any questions? - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 28, 2008 @ 09:00"
Wait a minute, you wrote "I WOULD stear" so that was wishful typing on my part. Sorry about that.
- No, no questions. This is great news, that you "XXXXX stear WAAAAY clear of the Chad Dukes (radio personality) and The Greaseman pages."
Sometimes editors perceive a personal attack where none actually exists. Usually this confusion happens when an editor misreads a personality conflict into a detailed post about a content disagreement. This is one of the shortcomings of the fight-or-flight response. People don't concentrate very well when they get angry. So an upset editor sometimes perceives an insult to his or her competence in a neutral statement such as "The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica contradicts your unsourced assertion."
If you feel yourself getting red in the face and skimming rather than reading, take a break. In a calmer moment, it will be clear whether the right response is to cite a more recent piece of scholarship instead of making a complaint about editor courtesy.
- Now, I have removed the Sockpuppet tags from the anon talk pages, this is good faith. In return, I would ask you to stop the bad-faith accusations. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 28, 2008 @ 09:13
A lot of heavy lifting to get good behavior out of you. We'll see.
- Be nice. Neutralhomer made a goodfaith mistake with the warnings. He is burying the hatchet. I suggest, in the strongest possible terms, that you do the same. And please read WP:TALK to learn how to format talkpages.// roux 09:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Though the case has been opened by myself, I believe mediation would not be beneficial to you in the circumstances. The dispute appears to have been a misunderstanding, and I believe there has been a relatively satisfactory resolution to the misunderstanding on this page. As NeutralHomer wants nothing to do with this case any more, it is probably best not to proceed with mediation, as without a second party, it would be a fruitless exercise. Further notes are left at the mediation page, I will close it tomorrow if there are no further comments. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)