User talk:LBear08

RE: Harassment
File something at WP:ANI. Hut 8.5 19:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. LBear08 (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mdsummermsw
Hey there. I can ping the user in question, but the problem is that there isn't really any policy-related reason to delete the discussion from the archives. I think it's a fair compromise, but there's not really anything I can do to force the user to abide by it. The discussion was had, I don't see any blatant personal attacks, and the discussion was eventually resolved, so there's not really any action that needs taking. I'll ask them again, but if they say no, I would suggest you just try and forget about it. (It's not like anybody is reading the talk page archives for that page anyway...) I'll let you know if anything comes of it. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I asked and she said no. As I said, policy supports Mdsummermsw's position, so I suggest that at this point you drop it.  Nobody is going to look through the archives anyway, and even if the content was deleted, it would still be accessible through the edit history if somebody really wanted to dig it up.  My suggestion is to just move on and try to be a productive editor.  Best of luck. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry but that's just unacceptable to me. That user is the one who needs to "forget about it". There is absolutely positively zero reason whatsoever for those comments to remain, especially after you suggested a perfectly reasonable solution, except that they simply want to settle for siding with ego and controlling behavior. I'm removing my own comments. He/she can get over it and continue on to be a productive editor themselves and leave what I do with my own comments alone. THAT would be the only truly non-disruptive outcome in all of this. There's no reason for this nonsense to continue. I'm removing my own comments and will continue to do so. There's nothing wrong with it whatsoever, other than that it "bothers" one power-tripping user. He/she should focus on the millions of other articles and let this one go. Thanks for your attempted help. LBear08 (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You attacked me in your sock spa nonsense. Trying to belittle, patronize, and discredit someone is an attack. You should be the one who should be blocked. Start following the policies yourself and stop making your power-trippy threats and hiding behind vague policies which you twist to fit your agenda. Go back to editing the millions of other articles every five seconds all day and BACK OFF of me and what I edit. It is VERY simple. There's a very simple solution here, and that is for you to chill out, back off, and go away. Thanks. LBear08 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Michelle Rodriguez/Archive1‎
Why are you deleting material from Talk:Michelle Rodriguez/Archive1? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it's just that I don't appreciate that user's old witch hunt of me. The truth is, those other users, while seemingly the same, were NOT me (possibly one random IP if I forgot to log in, but the rest absolutely not especially this L8ear08 copycat). I don't have any way to prove it other than saying so and hoping people will go on good faith. Also, I've tried to delete my OWN words as I was trying to rid the page of my part in our petty disagreements. At the end of the day that user and I have gone through a bunch of Wiki Alert resolution processes trying to work it out because they refuse to let me remove my own comments, refuse to remove their false accusations, and so on, but we've reached a "stuck" status. While it's against Wiki "policy" to delete material on the talk page, it's not strictly forbidden. Only considered "disruptive". And the truth is that one of the Wiki Alert moderators did say that there's no reason for that stuff to remain up anyway, though they can't technically approve of it's deletion without all parties agreeing and so on. We have been unable to reach an agreement, as for whatever reason the other user has it in his/her mind that they must root out some horrible wiki-evil they view me as. It would be easy to remove the accusations and our issues, and both just move on, but they refuse. Whatever, it's over on my end. But I did delete it one last time previously. I would hope that if the user in question would get over it, that other users such as yourself would please just let it be as well. It's really just a whole bunch of nonsense anyway. It's a talk page filled with false accusations and petty bickering. I find that disruptive so I wanted it to go away as it was a bad reflection of both my and others' purpose here. That's all. LBear08 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just forget about it? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd love to. I am trying to actually, now if that user would only do the same then everything would be great. LBear08 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Leave the archive alone and move on. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gladly, but I would like to ask, will you the admin agree to let the baseless sock spa go away? It's nonsense. I'm tired of other non-admin users trying to butt into an issue between me, another user and admin. If you want the edits reverted back due to "policy" then I will leave it alone, but other users jumping in and trying to take charge isn't going to fly and will only make me want to undo their reverts. Do YOU, admin, want it to stay? If so then I'm done with it. Happily, but I only take instruction from admin, not power-trippin users. If you revert my edit, I'll leave it alone from now on. But I'm asking that you not if only because again, I shouldn't have been made the object of someone's silly witch hunt. But again, if you revert it, I will respect that since YOU are ACTUALLY admin. LBear08 (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop. I've asked you once before. You've deleted this material at least 11 times, reverting reverting two admins in the process. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and after I saw they were admins I felt bad. I do try to be more careful of checking who's admin and who's not. Sorry for the trouble. It's all good. No more trouble on this from me. :) LBear08 (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Anytime you're in the situation of reverting four different editors eleven times there's a problem, regardless of whether some are admins. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Betrayal of trust
Whether it was admins doing the reverting or not is completely and totally irrelevant. You agreed during the mediation at the Wikiquette alert page to step back from the situation. You then waited a day and resumed the problematic behavior. This is absolutely unacceptable. Your removal of content from the Talk page archive flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. The fact that at one point I proposed the idea of making an exception -- a proposal which was ultimately rejected -- does not give you the right to violate Wikipedia policy.

You are walking on very thin ice here. Any further edits to the Talk page archive will be considered simple vandalism, and could rapidly result in a block. Thank you, and good day. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeeeeeeah and I JUST said I was done before you ya went off on me there. So all of that was really unnecessary. You guys take this stuff too seriously. What it all boils down to is that I was editing to achieve peace (wanted old bickering removed) and all of this craziness has happened because Wiki-policy outweighed logical real-world social policy and common courtesy. I was trying to do the right thing. I won't apologize for that. I will apologize however for getting caught up in more petty drama. It's unfortunate that "the right thing" and wiki-policy doesn't go hand in hand. Like, I was once told by a user here enforcing "policy": "truth is irrelevant. we do not edit based on truth we edit based on whether or not something is sourced". That was one of the funniest statements I'd ever read. Look, I'm trying to follow actual rules but I won't bend over to mistreatment and idiocy from other users who hide behind "policy". Your "policies" are vague and too open to interpretation from one user to the next. But it is what it is. Now I said before, and I'm done saying it. It's over. I'm done editing it. Seriously. Just chill out. I already have as stated above. Thanks and have a fantastic Wiki Day. LBear08 (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I hope that is the truth. While you did say you were "done" just before I "went off" on you, that's like the third time you've said so, so I don't know whether to believe it.  Hopefully you mean it this time.  If so, I wish you the best.
 * (P.S. The "we don't edit on truth" is actually very rationale, because as you may have noticed, people's ideas of "truth" can vary quite widely. Hence the reliance on verifiability and reliable sources, because that is more objective.) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is. Of course peoples' ideas of truth vary, but so does the media's. Many "sources" have facts twisted six ways from Sunday and in one case I dealt with it did and I was trying to use a source that wasn't viewed as "proper" when in fact it was the only place with facts. But see that's the problem with user-submitted content. Oh well. You can only do so much. Such is life. LBear08 (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)