User talk:Unemployed Golfer

Psychotronics - Edward321 (talk) REVERTS
Hello Edward321 (talk), you just reverted me both here (Disambiguation page) justifying it in the edit summary with "rv to better version", and here (Article page) justifying it in the edit summary with "Rv to more concise version".

I invite you to talk about it here or wherever you might wish, but firstly to comment on the new sources I researched and compiled into the article. I hope you won't decline my invite. It has been hard work for me thus at least I need to understand what is wrong. Unemployed Golfer (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw your comment on Edward321's talk page and thought I would respond about process not substance. The proper place to discuss issues with an article is on the article's talk page, in this case at Talk:Psychotronics (disambiguation) and Talk:Psychotronics.  The reason the discussion should be help there rather than on User talk pages is two fold.  First it will also allow others who follow the page to get involved.  Then there is the history associated with the article and the discussion.  In the future others can see what was discussed and concluded so that we don't have to have the same conversations over again.  The next thing I want to point out is that you told Edward321 that if he didn't respond in 12 hours you would just revert.  Not everyone is on Wikipedia all the time, you need to give people time to respond based on their real life schedule.  To add to this you should read the page on the recommended discussion model.  We call it Bold, Revert, Discuss.  What this means is someone (in this case you) makes a bold edit to an article.  Next someone (in this case Edward321) reverts the bold edit.  Now a discussion is held on the article talk page to come to a consensus as to what the article should say.  The person who made the bold edit is the one that is really on the hook to show why their edits belong or in other words how they improve the article.  Now if the two of you can't come to a consensus after discussing the edits on the article talk page then there are dispute resolution avenues to help achieve consensus.  If you have any questions please let me know.  -- GB fan 15:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comment but just one thing: reverting in 12 hours is not against any rules. Neither I believe making Edward321 aware of it, is. It's just about being clear about my intention which it was supposed to suggests "I'm however willing to respect the 3-revert-rule" (it's like I stated: "I'm obviously going to respect the 3-revert-rule").
 * I subscribe 100% to your suggestion about moving to the respective Talk pages. But the basic reason I gave him 12 hours which by the way, it's plenty of time to respond, and at the same time the reason I contacted Edward321 through our Talk pages is that I felt as Edward321's edit summaries were relatively very poor. Weren't they?
 * Last but not least.. I cannot know anyone's real life schedule. I challenge you to really subscribe to that part of your comment. Okay I know what you mean maybe (but it involves bad faith): "Don't set people on a schedule threatening to edit war if they don't respect it". Correct? Is that what you meant? Well that's the most wrong meaning you could have ever juiced from my Talk page invitation, I think. But maybe I'm missing something, what do you think? I hope it's clear it was not my intention to be arrogant, let alone violate guidelines. See you on the Talk pages involved maybe, and thanks for contributing. Unemployed Golfer (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said that reverting after 12 hours was against any rule, just pointing out that 12 hours is not enough time to respond if he does not log back on to Wikipedia for 24 hours. Looking at his editing history his editing is sporadic. He stopped editing at 16:24, 19 June 2016 and didn't make his next edit until 13:52, 21 June 2016 almost 48 hours later. Again no edit until 04:36, 22 June 2016 just short of 15 hours. Again no edit until 02:52, 23 June 2016 about 23 hours where he made 3 edits in a row but then no edit until 13:48, 23 June 2016 (11 hours) where he made six edits.  This shows that there is a good possibility he won't log back into Wikipedia until after your imposed deadline is past.  You didn't know what I meant and don't try to read bad faith into what I wrote. I am not implying bad faith on yours or anyone's part.  I didn't think you were going to edit war, that never even crossed my mind, I was just pointing out that not everyone who edits Wikipedia is here every 12 hours. -- GB fan 19:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Your other account/s


Do you admit that account is yours? It has exactly the same editing patterns and interests. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You give the game away too easily :)

On your account Beautifulpeoplelikeyou in the edit summaries you used the very specific phrase "reply to" when you were replying to someone, which matches what you do on your new account Unemployed Golfer. But that isn't the biggest give away. You edited exactly the same articles as Beautifulpeoplelikeyou (examples Psychotronics‎, Zdeněk Rejdák‎ and Psychotronics (disambiguation). You are not being very clever. If you want to deceive people you need to be a lot cleverer than this. There are clever people on this website. I worked you out easily. Take care. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)‎

June 2016

 * Actually evading a block is reason enough to remove all your edits no matter how good they are. You are not allowed to edit any more and your edits are not allowed no matter how good they might be as you have shown you can not follow our rules. If you continue you will end up without the ability to edit this page either. -- GB fan 22:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't believe wikipedia is soooooo stupid. I just cannot believe that. By the way, you're scary fuckers in control. You're really are the real deal. Note: Building 7 did not collapse on its own. 87.3.91.201 (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)