User talk:One21dot216dot

Cool
Let me be the first to welcome you as a human, rather than a template.

Well, on more careful investigation, I note that the rather hypocritical Pete/Skyring wrote some nonsense here first.

But whatever. Have fun. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the welcome, Hilo48. Someone else however seem determined to keep getting in my face and baiting me, but that's okay. I will do my best not to rise to the bait and simply remove any nonsense he places here. Best wishes. One21dot216dot (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have to remind myself sometimes to not take him too seriously. Don't-give-a-fuckism is a very valuable guideline. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!
Adding my welcome to you editing under a registered account. I look forward to working wtih you in the future. I'll see you around! - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Jorgath. I appreciate your taking the time to look into the CTA article and dealing with the problems. It appears that I do have much to learn and any pointers you put my way will be listened to and taken on board. Best wishes. One21dot216dot (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the things Pete/Skyring does have a point about is the whole talk page formatting thing. You're pretty good at it, but you make occasional slip-ups that I find forgivable, but someone more inclined to nitpick (or someone inclined to dispute with you) may be irritated by. I know you mass-devoured WP policies and guidelines, but I'd suggest you go back and re-read WP:TALK more carefully. I'd also suggest you always use the "Show preview" button when posting to a talk page or noticeboard - it's actually more important in some ways that you get your discussion posts right than that you get your article posts right. The thing that seems to be irritating Pete is that you sometimes put your responses before someone else's response instead of following it. That's the only thing that comes to mind for now, but if you have any questions, drop me a post on my talk page and I'll gladly help out. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ...you sometimes put your responses before someone else's response instead of following it. - Understood now. I also looked at Help:Using_talk_pages too. Many thanks for pointing this out to me - I needed this feedback. :) One21dot216dot (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm always glad to help. It is what Skyring was saying over in AN/I, but Skyring has irritated you enough (and I completely understand why) that you couldn't separate the legitimate advice from the irritating snarkiness. On another note, are you interested in editing any other areas besides the one that brought you on? I find it's generally a good idea to have at least three mostly unrelated editing areas so that if you encounter irritation and/or boredom with one, you can switch to another for a week or so. I have four areas, only two of which are related: baseball, aviation (especially airports), New Pages Patrol, and AfD; I also lurk and occasionally put my two cents in on AN/I. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

large talkpage post
Hi - Did you post this diff - if you did where did you get the content from? note- I have removed it until we sort the issues out - You  really  can  15:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi - they're findings 1 to 156 sourced directly out of the FWA National Office report (the 1,105 page one), and I inserted them in that format simply for ease of reference back to the AEC Report, which threw many of those FWA findings out. Also, as can be seen from looking at the table, many of the alleged 'findings' relate back to the same matters, over and over, and displaying the 'finding' as a table makes that point very clear. The next step I saw in writing the article was discussing the conclusions of the AEC Report and what part of the FWA they refuted, and I anticipated much circular argument from certain quarters when working toward that goal; adding the table to the talk page was a way which I thought may have avoided a lot of that. I see Collect reverted the table entry due to UNDUE, and I'm okay with that; I trust Collect's judgement and experience wrt BLP matters. I note also that, since then, various people have restored it back and you've reverted it due to being a form of OR, and I am okay with that too, for the same reason. Anyway, on another point, a question for you: is it okay to quote / cite from the AEC's media release about the AEC Report, or must any citations about the AEC report come from a published news source? Best, One21dot216dot (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi!
Someone alerted me to the fact that you may have been "going through it a bit" recently! Any time you may feel the need, you're very welcome to drop in at my talk page (also affectionately known as Granny Pesky's animal sanctuary and Mandatory Truce Zone). I have a weird and wonderful (emphasis mainly on wonderful) menagerie of helpful, kind, experienced talk page stalkers, quite a few of whom (like myself) are on the Autism spectrum and so have encountered some off-beat challenges as well! Do feel very welcome to drop in. Pesky (talk ) 06:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you, but I'm afraid you've been trolled by whoever left that message. Best, One21dot216dot (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Accidental blanking
I undid your accidental blanking here. You may wish to re-add your response. -- Neil N   talk to me  00:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the rollback of my accident. One21dot216dot (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Only warning
This edit constitutes WP:HARASSMENT, as I'm sure you're very well aware. Please cease this behaviour immediately or I'll have no other choice but to block you. Comment on the article, but refrain from commenting, even obliquely, on the contributors. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi - rest assured; I will not be making any more edits (like the one you've cited) in the future. By the way, I don't know how closely you've been following what has been going on with that article and with certain editors who have a clear COI, but - there have been unfounded accusations made against me by those partisan editors. They have falsely accused me of being the person who is the subject of the article, only because I objected to 'their' article being an attack page and used to support the smear campaign and 'trial by media' being orchestrated by a desperate and corrupt political parliamentary opposition. Please note that there is a lot more to this situation which is not immediately apparent to anyone who has just become aware of it, and things are not as simple as they may at first seem. Salvio, please note also that I have had to put up with a pattern of disruptive editing and blatant harassment from one of the conflicted editors; if you want examples, I will be pleased to provide them, but last time I took these types of problems to ANI, etc, nothing was done. Best wishes, One21dot216dot (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you wish, you can send me an e-mail, Special:EmailUser/Salvio giuliano, explaining the situation from your point of view. I can't guarantee I'll be able to do anything, but I'm certainly willing to take a look. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 11:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Hi - I have replied on my talkpage - regards - You  really  can  14:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)