User talk:Vhosythe42/Archive 2

RS:DDD
You should know by now that deleting discussions is not allowed. If you don't agree with God Of War's message, archive it. 19:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * SInce you are blocked I can understand that you can't archive right now, but that doesn't mean you can remove messages just because you don't like them. 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You should know by now that his message has no practial purpose and is thus spam. According to DDD, spam is the only type of message that can be removed.
 * Spam: Stupid Pointless Annoying Message. God Of War was proving a point. According to DDD, God Of War's message is not spam. I am happy to archive it for you along with any other messages you don't want on your talk page, but if you're going to continue removing messages you don't like then your talk page will be protected. 19:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think the message has a purpose, then by all means show it to me. But he has no rebutting evidence to prove that I'm a "troll", as only he thinks so ever since the ban that backfired. If he can't find proof, I'm deleting the message because it is all of the above: Stupid, Pointless, Annoying, Message.

Okay then. All you had to say was "please archive it". Your talk page is now protected. When you learn to follow RS:DDD it will be unprotected. 19:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to come check this out, so I did, and here is what I found. You took a definition of "militant" and posted it on your talk, apparently to show your opinion of God of War. God of War then took the definition of "Troll" and posted it back as a rebuttal, however inadequate, to your comment toward him. This shows to me, that you initiated the exchange by quoting a dictionary first. I don't feel that you can claim his message to be "S.P.A.M." if you started it. However stupid it may be, there was a point - to provide you a dictionary definition of his opinion of you as you did to him. I understand that these past few days have been stressful for nearly everyone involved, but things like this aren't suggested. We do have an essay called don't feed the trolls, and it appears you both contributed to it. Granted this is an essay and not a policy, it should still be observed in times like this. If you would like to claim his message as spam, you should not have posted the "militant" comment. That's instigating, and you therefor have no grounds to delete it because it doesn't suit you. You can't be rude to somebody and be upset when they're rude back. My advice would be to kindly request he posts no more comments on your talk page, as you don't wish for them anymore. Should you do that, and he continues to disrupt you, it could be a policy of the user treatment policy and could possibly be considered spam. As it stands now, I agree that the comment should remain on your page, and I feel that I have provided adequate examples as well as solutions to deal with future issues. I will unprotect this for now, please do not abuse it and go deleting the message again. If you would like me to archive it for you, I will gladly do so. =) 20:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The comment was addressed to Butterman, who misunderstood what I meant by "militants" (the poeple who support the side of Diber and myself.) Do you really think that I'd associate myself with (genuine) trolls like GOW when all he's trying to do is frame me by instigating? I don't want him sullying my page with his stagnant slime anymore, especially when I didn't ask for it.
 * So ask him not to post on your talk page. Problem solved. 20:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh, edit conflicts and a laggy wiki are annoying. Indeed it was addressed to Butterman, my apologies. However much it does violate policy (essay), I would recommend archiving it and requesting him not to contact you anymore. Should he violate you, it will be on record and can be considered harassment. 20:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Studies have shown that people act differently when they know they're being observed; for that reason, I'd rather let him get himself banned than tell him to leave me alone.


 * Well then, if you aren't going to ask him not to post on your talk page then you can't remove his messages just because you don't like them. 21:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's irrelevant whether I like his posts or not (which I don't anyway), since posts like the one above are transparently breaking Wikian policies.

This is posted on both pages, as it seems relevant to both of you. =)


 * Well, as I'm sure you know (or maybe you don't either way) I generally try to stay out of personal problems because they aren't really my place to begin with. I have looked over the so called "flame war" that has gone on, and I personally don't think either is 100% to blame, but rather both responsible. I know there are certain people that everyone just can't get along with; everyone is annoyed by somebody. However, in this situation, in order to avoid any more blocks, protects, etc. I personally think it's best to let bygones be bygones. In the end, you (and GOW) have to come to the realization that you don't know him, and he doesn't know you. He knows nothing about you, so should he insult you or talk crap about you, it's all just opinion. I hate seeing people who contribute to the community get banned because of small things like this. There is plenty of room here in cyberspace, it's easy to just completely ignore someone. As I said, kindly ask that he no longer contacts you. Should he continue after being asked not to, then he is violating policy and could be blocked again. But please, stay civil. It's more mature to just brush off comments that don't apply than to shoot back and retaliate against him. I admit, there are people everywhere that I don't "like" per se, but I still function with respect when around them. That's all you need to do. You don't need to say a word to him, or even acknowledge the fact he exists if you wish. Just please, don't act when you're hot-headed and do something you might regret later. We're all people behind the monitor. I understand you may be upset about things, but this really isn't the way to go about solving them. 21:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as I'm sure you know (or maybe you don't either way) I generally try to stay out of personal problems because they aren't really my place to begin with. I have looked over the so called "flame war" that has gone on, and I personally don't think either is 100% to blame, but rather both responsible. I know there are certain people that everyone just can't get along with; everyone is annoyed by somebody. However, in this situation, in order to avoid any more blocks, protects, etc. I personally think it's best to let bygones be bygones. In the end, you (and GOW) have to come to the realization that you don't know him, and he doesn't know you. He knows nothing about you, so should he insult you or talk crap about you, it's all just opinion. I hate seeing people who contribute to the community get banned because of small things like this. There is plenty of room here in cyberspace, it's easy to just completely ignore someone. As I said, kindly ask that he no longer contacts you. Should he continue after being asked not to, then he is violating policy and could be blocked again. But please, stay civil. It's more mature to just brush off comments that don't apply than to shoot back and retaliate against him. I admit, there are people everywhere that I don't "like" per se, but I still function with respect when around them. That's all you need to do. You don't need to say a word to him, or even acknowledge the fact he exists if you wish. Just please, don't act when you're hot-headed and do something you might regret later. We're all people behind the monitor. I understand you may be upset about things, but this really isn't the way to go about solving them. 21:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This post in a nutshell: Fact for the important things, opinion for everything else.
 * I have never held unjustified grudges against anybody; I despise GOW (and probably always will, unfortunately) because of his seemingly intentional interference in my personal or otherwise affairs when it's obvious that I don't want it. He's extremely pretentious for trying to spread his biased and unproven opinion about me wherever I go on this website, and he's unwilling to stop no matter how often I expose his discrimination.
 * On the other hand, my feelings toward Stinkowing are fueled only by his actions and intentions. While the many unfair bans placed upon me by him have affected my feelings toward him, it has only been proven facts (firsthand experience combined with my and others' evidence) used against him and opinion used against everyone else in the YewGrove debate.
 * Everyone else I haven't really had quarrels with, except the no longer-existing skirmish I had with InstantWinston. And that's basically all there is to it.


 * Holding a grudge does not solve the problem. Holding a grudge makes it more likely that hostilities will escalate between the two of you. Why can't you just let all of it go? Seriously, just forget about it. -- 21:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrase "If it doesn't apply, let it fly" fits perfectly here. Just brush it off ans ignore it completely. 21:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In my situation, it's harder than you think. I'd like to say that I try to follow that doctrine but that'd be a lie 80% of the time.
 * To be blunt, well, that's in your area of responsibility, not anyone else's. If you feel as though you may not be able to be reasonable and follow our policies, a wikibreak may be in order until that changes. -- 21:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of not being able to follow policies; I'm trying to defend my shattered reputation from being pulverized into sand. Because of GOW, I have been judged based on lies that only I know for a fact are untrue. If I could disprove them I would, but since I can't, people will continue to be assuming toward me and I'm trying to avoid that from happening.
 * First, there's no need for hyperbole. Second, if you put too much into your reputation and what people think of you, you not only detract energy you could be using to make acceptable contributions, but you create the foundation for drama and conflict. Edit and contribute without regard to what people think of you. If you come in direct conflict with a user over something, settle it in a mature fashion- that way the reputation that you claim has been damaged will improve. One last note: I must ask that you sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ), as the way you sign right now does not produce a timestamp. -- 22:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have once again misunderstood me, for narcissism has nothing to do with this; with a reputation that has been sullied by GOW's verbal garbage and propaganda, everyone falsely assumes that everything I do is done for the purpose of catalyzing someone's downfall, bringing a community to its knees or avenging something. This is an assumption that ends up hurting the community whenever my somewhat latent positivity is hastily mistaken for rancors. People who haven't met me outside of teh interwebz have no right to say anything like that with such a gaping lack of proof. All YewGrovian posts I've made have been written for my view of making a better community out of what it is now. But once someone disagrees with it, they feel the responsibility to twist it into something against me. And why? Because my opinion differs from theirs and, because my reputation is (fairly or not) filthier than theirs, it must be a venom that'll annihilate all reason and understanding and shan't be given any thought. Not only is that unfair, it's extremely conceited for any of you to think that you're always right and that having an opinion differing from yours is dangerous without even the possibility of yours being wrong. This is the way it has been for much too long, and most likely, I'm not the only victim of this plague. And for the record, where's this "good faith" that everyone likes to talk about so much? I've seen it distributed to everyone but myself, considering that I've been punished for everything I've done and so much more.
 * P.S. For real "hyperbole", see quote:
 * "...That's it. I've had it with you, Vho. We've ALL had it with you. You are a mean, cruel, bullying user who has proven to all of us (minus Diber and a few others) that you exist here solely for lying, bullying, argumentative reasons. You have made me cry in front of my best friend because I couldn't handle this issue's stress then."
 * And how would you know about what goes on in Stinko's life? WWTDD? 19:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To WWTDD: the reasons why Stinkowing acts as he does are irrelevant. It is the offences that he actually makes that count. 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To Wejer: See Soldier 1033's comments on the discussion page about assuming good faith on Stinko's contribs. -- 19:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To Wejer: See Soldier 1033's comments on the discussion page about assuming good faith on Stinko's contribs. -- 19:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly the point: we're not supposed to! Not only is it downright whining and avoidance of responsibility, but it's also another flimsy excuse to use overly exaggerated propaganda. He's basically saying, "I hate this person and am banning him. If you try to defend him, I'll ban you too and blame a disorder which I may or may not have. That way, when people argue against me, I'll be able to pull an innocent-and-naïve act so others will pity me and call him cruel for not supporting me."
 * My theory is that I'm going to get a permaban for saying that. But if he does decide to act upon it, that'll just prove his inability to accept criticism and feed Diberville's bonfire further (which I don't want but would be great evidence for him.) I won't even comment on how I didn't ask for your opinion since you're entitled to it.
 * P.S. Diberville requests that all non-debating sysops get involved in the debate, and I agree...See quote near the bottom of the page.
 * [[Image:Rune berserker shield 100.png|25px]]Vhosythe42 talk [[Image:Skull sceptre.gif]] 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Did I block Caleb for unblocking you, Vho? Nope.
 * Did I block Diber for his tirade against me? Not at all.
 * Did I block Dengenret for basically saying "Everyone who opposes me is spoiled"? Hell NO!

So get your damn facts straight before you go accusing me with more false claims. And I don't hate ANYone, unlike you...I simply hate their actions and words.


 * This is the THIRD time you've blocked me for personal reasons, stinko...And that's not including the three or four others during your clash with CalebChiam! You don't hate me? That's a load of crap! Why mein kampf isn't enough to get you desysopped BY ITSELF is beyond me, and I don't blame Chiam for losing so much respect for you. Without even bringing myself into that example, you'd get him desysopped just because he opposes you! You are THE most autocratic person I've EVER met, and that's all I'm going to say before you use your autocracy to ban me and my proof yet again.
 * This is exactly why people think you're a troll. -- 20:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm...can you count, Vho? I have blocked you five times in total, all for your hateful trolling. The first time was the permablock, for which I was gracious enough to reduce to your second block, this one set for a month. Then Caleb unblocked you three times, and I reblocked THREE TIMES. So, yes, your block log is long, but it's not as long as you want it to seem to others. Five blocks handed by me VS eight with three that you made up...I know what the truth is. I'm not dumb, and I'm not falling for that trick.


 * "This is exactly why people think you're a troll."
 * The keyword there is "think". I'm exposing the facts and, per the post above, you're trying to end that. What are your motives? Bias against me or toward stinkowing? Etc.? Oh, no; yet another hider from the truth. I'm so scared...
 * I'm not dumb"
 * Guilty conscience?
 * "I'm not falling for that trick."
 * Good, because trying to disprove the enormous amounts of evidence against you didn't work on me either; I'm glad we're on the same page.
 * "Five blocks handed by me VS eight with three that you made up..."
 * Oh, so you're educated on how many unfair blocks you've made? Thank you for acknowledging how many times you've broken the same rule in a row.
 * Your incessant stream of lies entertains me, but more important than my entertainment is the debate. I hope Diber knows how to use this properly.
 * How about the fact that you post maliciously, with harsh words and a hostile intent? -- 20:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we all just get along? =) Things are so much more peaceful when we all work together, not to mention we're more productive. 20:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Honestly, it's pointless to feed the trolls. -- 20:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "hostile intent" that you refer to is the persuit of the justice that this entire community deserves. By merely referring to it as that, you've declared your genuine feelings toward what's right and what's wrong, as well as your bias toward Stinko. That bias nullifies your aura of neutrality and thus, everything you say concerning the debate can be assumed as being biased toward Stinkowing as well and not truthful. "Maliciously" posting? That's your immaturity and, sigh, fear of the truth.
 * P.S. Stay off my talk, Andorin. All you're doing is smearing the lies and making a false rep about me without proof of my intention. "Assuming good faith", are you? No. So stay away until you follow the rules that you say you're trying to defend. [[Image:Rune berserker shield 100.png|25px]]Vhosythe42 talk [[Image:Skull sceptre.gif]] 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My sense of right and wrong, which is clearly more complete than yours, tells me that Stinkowing deserves a break and you are a troll. -- 20:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I said to get the hell out, Andorin; As Soldier_1033 has informed me, if I tell someone to stay away and they don't, they can be justifiably punished. '''Leave until you get a practical use in this debate (lying for one team and against the other is NOT practical.) [[Image:Rune berserker shield 100.png|25px]]Vhosythe42 talk [[Image:Skull sceptre.gif]] 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The bias you refer to is my belief in Stinkowing as a person, an editor and a sysop. Your radical opposition to him could be construed as bias against him just as easily. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically produce your name and the date. -- 20:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against the person; I have everything against the sysop who needs a taste of the justice he has not received. One more post from you against my demand, BTW, and I'll be requesting Soldier to put his post into effect. [[Image:Rune berserker shield 100.png|25px]]Vhosythe42 talk [[Image:Skull sceptre.gif]] 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You said "until you get a practical use in this debate." I'm posting practically. Also, have you considered that your views on his contributions merely are your opinion? -- 20:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My cause has been proven by fact after fact after incriminating fact. By denying what has been proven, you're an impractical rule-breaker, exploiting any blasphemy you possibly can to bring me down and glorify Stinkowing's inexcusable behavior. GET OFF RIGHT NOW. THE DEBATE ON THIS TALKPAGE IS ONLY TO BE HELD AMONG THE USERS THAT USE BRAIN POWER AND HAVE SOMETHING USEFUL TO SAY. Even Stinkowing beats you in that dept. [[Image:Rune berserker shield 100.png|25px]]Vhosythe42 talk [[Image:Skull sceptre.gif]] 20:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Flaming me now? Tut, tut. Such a troll-like activity. But if you want to tell me to depart the discussion just because you can't handle my points, then depart I shall. Enjoy yourself. -- 20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, since you're obviously gone by now, I won't have to explain the difference between not being able to handle something and not wanting to deal with it. I can't DEAL with your imbecilic arrogance, as it's clouding the judgement of everyone in this talkpage.

Request to Archive

 * ATM, this talkpage is my making my computer's speed less than or equal to the YewGrove does. I'd like to request an archiving so that it makes talking easier for everyone (except Andorin, who is no longer allowed in here.)
 * Thank you,
 * You are not allowed to bar people from posting on your talk page. }} 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not allowed to bar people from posting on your talk page. }} 21:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was told by a reliable user that if I didn't want GOW talking on here and I told him as such, he wouldn't be allowed to without consequence since he would be aware of me not wanting him here. Does that not go for certain people just because they're your friends? No. Hell, I'm letting you stay on here because we should be trying to settle our differences like the young men we're supposed to be. Is he being useful by doing nothing more than insulting me without proof? I see no solid proof. The same goes to GOW who, per waaay up above, was spamming. Now, after this is archived, I'd like to settle this in here while I'm until I'm still banned, after which it will continue in public sight OR when I'm unbanned. But here's hoping it doesn't last that long. (5:33 P.M. Eastern USA time.)


 * Would you like all of it but this conversation archived, or would you like to keep the one above this on as well? 21:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If possible, make seperate links: one for miscellaneous junk and one for this debate pl0x? Otherwise, just one big link to make a completely clean page. Thanks.