User talk:OnlyForQuadell

Edit summaries
Welcome to Wikipedia. I suspect you're new and might not know, but it's important to make edit summaries in the "Edit summary" box below the edit field. This becomes particularly important when making small edits that might not be readily identifiable by other editors. Please check out that bluelinked guideline. Also, it's usually best not to revert another editor who undoes your edit &mdash; that can be taken as edit-warring. Best to discuss the other editor's concerns either at his/her talk page or on the article's talk page. Happy Wikiing! --Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Respect for the most blatant violation of AGF I can remember! You admit that you are far from understanding my edit, but revert it anyway. Balls! Or maybe, nowadays you don't need any balls for that, it's just assumed that you bite newcomers.
 * Also, you seem to have forgotten to send TriiipleThreat the same message, how comes?
 * One advise from me: It's best to discuss the other editor's concerns either at his/her talk page or on the article's talk page. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Attacking me doesn't change the fact that responsible Wikipedia editors use edit summaries. Those who do not, such as you, have been known to make tiny, sometimes all-but-imperceptible vandal edits. I do not know if that is what you did, but this happens commonly, and reverting edits where the change cannot be readily seen and the editor refused to do an edit summary is the common course of action. I'm sorry you chose to immediately launch into insults and schoolyard epithets, and your remark about "most blatant violation of AGF I can remember" indicates you are not a newcomer, so I find your post disingenuous as well. I hope this is our final interaction. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Attacking me doesn't change that fact that you started out assuming bad faith and never changed course. I ask you now to reconsider that and stop attacking me unless you find something I actually vandalized. Until then, how about do what you preach and discuss the other editor's concern either at his/her talk page or on the article's talk page?
 * Please point out any insults I made, and stop the personal attacks (like claiming that I insulted you). --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are at three reverts. One more and you will be in violation of WP:3RR. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are in the middle of an edit war and already in violation of WP:3RR. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * RE: "Please point out any insults I made." That would be "Balls! Or maybe, nowadays you don't need any balls for that...." I think any admin would find that language completely unjustifiable. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, admins do all kinds of funny things. That doesn't make it in insult though. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * RE: "Do what you preach and discuss the other editor's concern either at his/her talk page or on the article's talk page?" I did. I came to your talk page and tried to speak with you diplomatically. [This comment left by Tenebrae]
 * Actually you merely explained why you would assume bad faith. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? Saying another editor doesn't have any balls is not an insult to you? Interesting. I guess we'll have to let an admin decide if your behavior is appropriate on Wikipedia.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you are making stuff up, I never said that. Please re-read and use the opportunity to calm down a bit and start a constructive dialogue. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How can you say that you did not say, "Balls! Or maybe, nowadays you don't need any balls for that...."? It's at your comment posted 01:26, 31 August 2011. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did say that, but that's is not what you claimed before. I never said that you'd have no balls.
 * Again, reconsider your offensive stance, calm down, apologize, and start a constructive dialogue. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Breaking up my comments
For the record, I do not leave unsigned comments. The paragraph ended "speak with you diplomatically" is the first part of my 16:22, 31 August 2011 post, which OnlyForQuadell broke up. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting hilarious. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Break
Having cleared the air over at 3RR, I advise you to climb down from your argument with Tenebrae. Your response to him was in itself a remarkable expression of bad faith. I suggest that you address the content issue on the article's talkpage and stop arguing about the name-calling.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * His assumption of bad faith was expressively made, I really don't see why you think it would be bad faith to repeat it here.
 * And yes, I am already in the process of discussion the changes, and I will stop talking to Tenebrae as soon as he stops to harass me.
 * Thanks for your help! --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As an aside: Have a look of the name of the active section in Talk:Thor to see what I have to put up with. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you're arguing about the vandalism characterization, where you are entirely wrong. I suggest you stop arguing or looking for reasons to take offense and explain your intentions in the original editing process clearly and concisely, without editorializing on others' conduct or intentions.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest to take a closer look, then you will see that I started exactly that, the minute someone talked to me without attacking me.
 * Again, do you think that anything is wrong with that section's title? --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

STOP responding to Tenebrae! One of you needs to walk away from this pettiness because the issue is over. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss
First let me say welcome to Wikipedia. You are correct that I should have left an edit summary, for which I apologize. The edit war at Thor (film) could have been easy avoided by using the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Instead of re-reverting, a discussion should have been started at that point. Template:Uw-3rr states "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right". This is especially true as I have come to agree with your position through discussion. Please be aware that I am not trying to pile on but give you sincere advice. Happy editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Appreciated, thanks for the advice. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Thor (film), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. WikiPuppies! (bark) 19:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop making bogus warnings. The other editor is constantly spreading lies about me. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No more warnings: continue this behavior and your editing privileges will be suspended.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you persist in attacking another editor despite warnings to the contrary, I've blocked this account. Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, as it applies to you.   Acroterion   (talk)   19:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I also support the unblock. While OnlyForQuadell needs to maintain a cooler head, the situation could have been over after a polite discussion about brackets in quotations. Tenebrae chose to continue engaging the editor when he could have walked away and let other editors engage OnlyForQuadell in discussion. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The block is the result of a lengthy exchange that began with a polite request from Tenebrae, which receive an inappropriate response from Only For Quadell , and has since gone downhill. Tenebrae should have disengaged, but I see OFQ as the principal problem here: Tenebrae didn't deserve the response he received.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae continuously spreads lies about me, all I was doing was to ask for evidence. If you disagree, provide a difflink with an attack on my part. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now he is accusing me and Erik of sockpuppetry. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OnlyForQuadell, I think both you and Tenebrae are fighting to save face. I also think you're both past that point. I would encourage you in your request to be unblocked to say that you will not communicate with Tenebrae any further, and if he messages you, you will ignore him. Would that be possible? One of you needs to let the matter drop, and both of you can continue separate ways. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As for the accusation of sockpuppetry, I've chosen to ignore it. Can you do that with him? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: sockpuppetry: as have I. Erik's advice is good; both parties must disengage.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Take a closer look: I already let the matter drop, and only reacted to outright lies from him. So no, if he continues to spread lies, I will respond.
 * @Acroterion: Your block is bogus. Provide a difflink with an attack on my part, or unblock and apologize. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And therein lies the problem: "if he continues to spread lies, I will respond." Don't respond, and it will end. I've provided the two crucial links that cast the die for the whole dispute above. The editing dispute has been satisfactorily resolved.   Acroterion   (talk)   20:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) No, the problem is that someone is spreading lies.
 * So, in the face of an editor continuously spreading lies about another, a request to an admin to stop the lies is an attack? Really? I mean, really? Would you be able to explain that to your children? --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If I had any children, I would explain to them that I've acknowledged that the other editor's approach was less than ideal and that I've personally pointed that out to that other editor. I would also tell them that sometimes we have to move on from crappy situations like this one. (Though maybe I wouldn't say "crappy" to them!) That's why I've asked you to reword your request to be unblocked. You have to be willing to move on and to express that notion. Otherwise, I cannot continue advocating for you. It's the Internet. Everyone's anonymous. No one really knows each other, how can their insults have any weight? I hope you'll consider that. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you dodged the question. Let's add some details to the example (which might be closer to home than one might think): What if your son is claiming that your daughter stole cookies (no cookies are missing), destroyed the garden (the garden is fine) and insulted the grandma (which lives in another town). Would you ground you daughter for asking you to make him stop spreading these stories?
 * Oh, and I'm not insulted. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been trying to help you, but it is hard to humor your example. The Internet is very different from real life. I'm saying that when you shrug off situations like this one, you'll be better for it. Believe me, it's that easy. There's always work to do on Wikipedia, and the best editors try to find their own sandboxes for contributing. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment, my sandbox is restricted to this very page, because someone (still) spreads lies about me and I don't let them stand. (At the same time, all he gets for continuing his spiel are some mild requests.)
 * Sorry, I'm completely at a loss to explain this. I'm aware that I might be able to buy an unblock by letting is rest, but what about the next poor schmuck that gets attacked by Tenebrae? --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OnlyForQuadell, he blocked you because you were being intemperate, and I can understand that. That is why I am suggesting that you say you will disengage from communication with Tenebrae. Sometimes you need to let BS roll off of you; I did that with the accusation of sockpuppetry. I think that indicating a parting of ways from Tenebrae will go a long way toward being unblocked—not necessarily by Acroterion, but by an admin who will review the block. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm willing to be convinced; after all, no block was needed for the edit-war business. This is all about having the last word, something that is nearly impossible on the Internet.   Acroterion   (talk)   20:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Having the last word is not the same as letting a lie about a blockable offense stand.
 * @Acroterion: Your block is bogus, if you base it on my request to you to intervene in this very matter; unblock and apologize. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If I was intemperate, then because someone was spreading lies about what I said. I merely asked for evidence. This is not a symmetrical situation, where two parties crack their heads: In this case, one party is lying, the other is responding with requests for evidence. Think about this. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "I'm willing to be convinced" to unblock? I do hope you're not saying that his horribly vulgar "balls" line of insults is OK. A one-day block for that kind of attack is not overmuch. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop spreading lies. Provide difflinks to the insults you are talking about. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am certainly not lying, and please stop saying so. For the millionth time: Here is where you inexcusably insulted another editor: "Balls! Or maybe, nowadays you don't need any balls for that...." You keep acting like you never said it. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, here is another lie. There are more.
 * Second, that quote seems to be correct, but it's at worst a mock compliment, not an insult. I'm not saying (as you claimed before) that you have no balls, it's not even implied, and wouldn't make sense here. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am walking away at the request of Acroterion, who you are now also apparently calling a liar since he agreed that you are not a newbie. If you keep attacking me, I will do my utter best not to respond here but to ask an admin to ask you to stop. I am making a good-faith effort. I am not even asking for an apology for the "balls" insult. I, and I'm sure Acroterion, too, expect you to make a good-faith effort as well.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So no comment at all on how you misunderstand the "balls" business?
 * There is no insult. Stop spreading lies. Provide difflinks to the insults you are talking about. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (this reply is a ; also, I found out about you at WP:UAA, somehow) So, let me get this straight. OnlyForQuadell here got a notice about edit summaries, to which he, of course replied. According to Tenebrae here, said reply was a personal insult to another editor. (not trying to accuse you, OnlyForQuadell; though I do want to add that I actually agree with Tenebrae, to tell you the truth) Now, he got a block and he is also in a conflict due to a simple warning.
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't this have been avoided if OnlyForQuadell had simply replied in a nicer manner?
 * Note: don't accuse other users of not assuming good faith, unless it is apparent that they actually didn't. I ALWAYS assume good faith. If someone accuses me of not assuming good faith, I would usually discuss it with them in a nice manner. Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)