- Now at ANI
@J man708:, we seem to be off to a bad start. Your first edit was unexplained. My response was to ask a question. I honestly didn't know what the issue was. When you claimed Its the league table, matching every other seasons article, you made a plainly inaccurate statement. The rest of the interaction was petty, but I didn't check before reverting because I didn't know what the issue was and you lied to put the article in a state you preferred. I'm sorry if I upset you. Feel free to make bold changes, but discuss if you get reverted, and not via snarky edit summaries, but on talk pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I lied to put the article in the state I preferred? A mistake doesn't equal a lie. I wrote "League table" which as you know, is used interchangeably with other season articles (which is what I believed the other articles used), I'll admit I was incorrect in my assumption as to that. My point is that calling the section the "Supporters' Shield" is completely wrong and that the edit I made changing it to "League table" shouldn't have been undone, rather just edited on top of. Undoing and sending alerts is needless, as is this conversation.
- J man708 (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. A mistake does not equal a lie, but you claimed that that "every other seasons article" was this way and yet you didn't check either. So you made a false claim. If it was unintentional, I could understand. You complained that I didn't check (which I didn't) yet you made a statement that made it appear as though you checked and yet you didn't. Thank you for admitting that you were wrong. I explained why it was reverted. Did you see why I did so? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't see why an undo was necessary, when a simple edit over the top of it would suffice. - J man708 (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Did your first edit have an edit summary? No.
- Did I undo it because it was wrong or because I wasn't clear why the change was made? The latter.
- Was your edit summary in the next edit (where an edit rather an a revert would have sufficed) accurate? You believed it to be accurate, but it was clearly wrong.
- Assuming an editor knows that it was unintentional error, is it better to correct the error and let the misunderstanding continue unchecked or is it better to alert that editor somehow? It is always better to inform an editor of an error.
- Since there was no clear understanding that it was an honest mistake, is it better to alert the editor or let them think they "got away" with something? It is always better to inform an editor of an error.
- You were wrong at every step and there's very little justification for your behaviour, but you keep trying. I hope you understand this now. I don't actually expect an answer. If you do, don't expect anything further from me unless it's clearly ignorant and self-serving on your part. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Does every edit require a summary? No.
- Does every edit on this page require your permission? No.
- Did you assume I was putting the article how I preferred or that I was genuinely fixing up an edit that I believed to be wrong? In short, did you WP:AGF? No.
- Did you acknowledge that where I knew I was in the wrong (being something technical, by having "League table" instead of "Overall table"), I admitted to it? No.
- Did you acknowledge the point that I was actually bringing up, which is that an edit doesn't need to be undone if it has a small error, but can be simply fixed? Not really.
- Walter, you're the boy who cried wolf. You're happy to edit war and then dob the other person in for doing what you've been doing, but you show that you believe yourself to be taking the high road by making the report against them (WP:BOOMERANG). Perhaps you'll find that people will be more willing to work alongside you if you fix your ways? Perhaps you'll also find that if you do fix your ways that "mysteriously" you'll be involved in less arguments on here.
Surely you're not the lowest common denominator here, are you? No! Not you! Never! - J man708 (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about permission. I watch for vandals, who like you, make a mess of articles. I may have been a problem in some instances, but in this case, you are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Vandals? Hahaha! At least I'm here to make an encyclopedia, not like yourself who is evidently here to receive the world's longest blocklist. Do us all a favour? Hurry up and get permabanned. - J man708 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're here to make an encyclopedia start behaving more mature and use edit summaries. And stop lying, I don't have the world's longest blocklist. But considering I'm also in the top of contributors, some conflict is expected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you're truly one of the self proclaimed "top contributors"... Sorry, I can't even type that with a straight face... If you are indeed a good contributor, then perhaps you'd learn that having a blocklist that long shows that "Hmmm... Perhaps I am the cause of some of my own issues around here!" And please, quit using this talk page to attempt to discredit me? That's one of the things a personal talk page should be used for. Perhaps a "top contributor" should know that? - J man708 (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I should have been a bit more clear: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits I'm No. 137 on that list. That's what I mean by being a top contributor. I'm not using this page to discredit you, your reputation is clearly defined in your edit history. Nothing I write here will change that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And what does my edit history proclaim? That I'm a bit of a WP:WikiGnome? Superb.
- This isn't a one-up contest. Being 137th on the list doesn't mean shit when people don't respect you when you are frequently WP:Gaming the system. Besides, I could use Twinkle and Koavf myself to a ridiculous number of fake stats, too. I choose to contribute with a keyboard, rather than a mouseclick. That's how this encyclopedia was built. - J man708 (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet you're treating this like a WP:BATTLEGROUND. You clearly identified a discrepancy. Thanks for helping make this article better. I made it correct. The only winner is the article. In the future, I'll try to fix your mistakes without a revert so you're not alerted since that seems to offend you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert when necessary. A technical issue (ie. "League/Overall table") to fix the status quo? Just edit it and leave an edit summary if you deem necessary. I wouldn't have mentioned your editing practices if you hadn't mentioned mine first. To me, it seemed highly hypocritical of you, a person with a block log and a history of edit-warring as extensive as yours to bring this up to me. You still don't seem to understand this. I know I have my faults when it comes to Wikipedia and yes, I will try and place an edit summary in the future more often, however your previous history of edit-warring, gaming the system, prior arguments and willingness to drag this on to this ridiculous extent is something which certainly far outweighs what I've done... In short, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. - J man708 (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking some blame in this. I'll let my 200,000 edits stand on their own merit too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Along with your blocklist? Hah. Be my guest. - J man708 (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and by additions to various admin boards. Ping me when you get to 200,000 edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What does an edit count have to do with you being unable to take any form of criticism? - J man708 (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what this discussion was about? It seems I took the criticism you offered rather well. To answer the first half of your question, I mentioned edit count not as a badge or anything, but just as a way to say I think this discussion has gone very far off topic and is serving no useful purpose. I'll try not to be so opaque in the future. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk)
- Did you? Because you didn't acknowledge it, but instead kept mentioning how wrong I was and how I'm a horrible editor in relation to yourself? - J man708 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you're a horrible editor in relation to me, but I do believe that you bear some blame in the edit war that I (foolishly) continued. But yes, this discussion is no longer about the article, it's about you trying to justify yourself because you think I'm trying to vilify you. That's not what I'm trying to do. Conversely, I refuse to have you put all the blame on me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I trying to put all the blame on you, or did I already admit to having been incorrect on my initial edit? In the future, please assume good faith into others? We're really not all out to get you. I know you've dealt with a lot of edit warring in the past and the outcomes have been unfair, but you can't assume everyone is like this. - J man708 (talk) 03:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly felt like you're trying to put all the blame on me, along with implying that my block history was the longest in the world and now that I'm paranoid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleary you're too stubborn to see anything else but your own point of view. These are my points plain and simple. 1) I don't think you should've undone the edit, instead just fixing it up. You replied with a remark and then talked about edit counts for some reason. 2) I suggested that you curve your behaviour as you're known to edit war. You replied with "I'm one of the top contributors". 3) I have admitted fault in the initial matter. You refuse to WP:DROPTHESTICK to the point where this is still going on, some 7 hours later. 4) Any form of criticism (and I have tried to give it constructively at times and been forceful at others) doesn't seem to get through your head. If you can't acknowledge these, then please stop responding, as you're clearly too stubborn to function like a regular human being. If you can acknowledge these points, perhaps learn from it and realise that this has become a 7 hour long discussion which has already been rectified. Jesus fucking Christ dude, drop the fucking stick. - J man708 (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I do see your point of view. In fact, seeing all sides of a debate is one of my strong points. I do understand your concern, but I haven't been discussing you for a while. This is the first reply in many where I address you. You could easily drop the stick as well, but you're treating this like a battleground: you have to win. 1) I should have undone the edit because it was unexplained. Plain and simple. It was also wrong. 2) An edit war takes two editors. To avoid an edit war WP:BRD. Who started the discussion? I did. 3) You have not admitted fault unless point three is the acceptance. Show me the diff and I'll strike this comment. You're still going seven hours later. 4) I have accepted constructive criticism many times and I have learned from your comments, but not what you think I should be learning. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Your answer seems to be very much "I know you are, but what am I?". You're clearly incorrigible at this point. Best of luck in the future. - J man708 (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been thinking that about your responses all along. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Jesus, dude. WP:DROPTHESTICK already! - J man708 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I am neither Jesus, nor the one who needs to drop the stick, but feel free to take your own advice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this childishness really how a "top contributor" should be acting? - J man708 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the logical fallacy of equivocation. When I use the term top, it means I have made more edits than most others. You're using the term to imply "one of the best" or "most impressive". So, yes, to get my edit count up to stay at the top, this is how I should be acting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you still going? You're now talking about rhetoric? We've gotten past the original issue. Drop the damn stick, the horse died a long time ago. - J man708 (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Before you ask me such childish questions, ask them of yourself first. The exact same questions and answers can come from you. Why are you still going? What pissing contest are you trying to win (see BATTLEGROUND above)? I have no need to stop, so you can stop being a META:DICK and telling me to do something that you won't do yourself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "I have no need to stop". I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Nothing is accomplished from that.
- Walter, you started this discussion by bringing it to the talk page. I answered. You're clearly not happy with my answer. That's fine. Either way, please move on. - J man708 (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You were not happy with my behaviour and kept pushing that point. Nothing is accomplished by pouting and acting childish because I was trying to alert you to your errors. And I didn't start the discussion, you did by making two f-ed up edits. I actually followed WP:BRD. Please move on yourself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So I started this conversation by bringing this to the talk page? You are deluded. - J man708 (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No. You started it by edit warring and using edit summaries to discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I was edit warring? Really? Go report me then, WG. - J man708 (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- we were both edit warring, yes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And what do you honestly believe should be the outcome of this? What would you most like to happen from this? - J man708 (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- For you to admit that I wasn't doing something wrong by fixing your edits using a revert.
- For you to admit that your changes were not what they claimed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with you finding the need to revert the edit. My reasons are as follows - You know as well as I do that "League table" and "Overall table" are interchangeable in most articles. This is clearly extremely different from "Supporters' Shield Overall table" which is something that it has never been called on here. I feel that a simple edit were to suffice, as opposed to a revert. A revert generally comes across as a "Fuck you, you're completely wrong", regardless of how others intend this action to be taken. Yes, I made a mistake with my original edit by placing the aforementioned words "League table" wherein it's actually "Overall table" that is used. If this is necessary to apologise for and that's what this has all been about, then you've clearly missed me admitting fault in this several times now.
- You've mentioned what you believe I should do from this, but what do you believe should happen to you, being unbiased and considering your known history of edit warring?
- J man708 (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have missed you a apologizing, and have asked you to show me the diff where it happened, so I will ask you to use the {{diff}} template or just link to it. My edits were minor changes (although not marked as such) so nothing should happen to me (or you) for the edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My first response "I'll admit I was incorrect in my assumption as to that." - J man708 (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. You equate admitting to an error is your way of apologizing. I suppose that's as much as I can expect. That addresses the second point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you see any errors to admit to yourself? - J man708 (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have and I have admitted to several. You have not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'm at 136 now. Keep it up! Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, my first response admits to it being a mistake. - J man708 (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW - That is literally the definition of apologise. To admit or express regret to something one has done wrong. As for calling me a sociopath, that's a direct personal attack. - J man708 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You did admit to it. You did not express regret. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I very much regret it, as it has turned this into a total farce. - J man708 (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The fallacy of equivocation yet again. You don't regret the action but what it led to. BTW, you still are ignoring your own advice and dropping the stick. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Because again, as I said earlier, you started this conversation by bringing it to the talk page, so I'm responding to each of your comments. - J man708 (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You started the conversation by reverting. You don't need to keep responding because I will respond to every inaccuracy you provide. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that's an edit, not a conversation. - J man708 (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's the problem. You don't see that edit summaries (or lack thereof) are conversations.
- The fact that you don't generally use them (even though you read them, which is evidenced from the fact that my fist revert commented that the reason for the revert was because you didn't explain why you made the first change, I caught you in an error when you made the second, and you misread my musings about your psychological state) supports that claim. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Conversation - A talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged. - J man708 (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's what was happening with the edit summaries. Yes, I started here, but you started the edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a conversation then, so please let's end the conversation here and you can feel free to end the edits elsewhere. This conversation has gone on far too long. - J man708 (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You're wrong that it's not a conversation just because you don't communicate, but I agree that we should end the conversation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And you're wrong that it's solely on you to end the conversation you started. - J man708 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And you're wrong to continue a closed discussion and to insist that you get the last word because someone else started the discussion. You've been wrong all along, but I guess people don't tell you that very often so, as a wilful child you'll keep this discussion going with no point to make other than you get the last word. I'll let you have the last word if you admit that I was not wrong to make a revert to make it clear that your change was mistaken and it was the easiest way to convey that you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, how magnanimous of you! Mate, you brang this to the talk page. You asked, I answered. You didn't like my response. That's fine. Disagreements happen. But to continue it, making demands in exchange for just shutting the hell up? That's just ridiculous. You're the one who has ran off to admins to try and block me for edit warring in the past, you're the one who tried to lock the conversation to have the last laugh and you're the one who won't accept the respondent's correspondence as their explaination... And I'm the one acting childish? Are you serious? You thought a revert was necessary. Fine. I didn't think it was needed. Also fine. Leave it at that. - J man708 (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to be magnanimous, but I think that was a disingenuous statement. You erred when you edited without explaining why. You erred up when you explained why. You keep implying that my editing history actually matters, when it's actually you caused the problems here. And now it seems that your behaviour here is retribution for me following correct procedure by escalating a previous problem. I would accept your explanation, if it were reasonable, but it's not. Yes, you're acting childish, but thanks for lying and pretending you're OK with me reverting you to explain how you erred. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I imply that your edit history caused the problems here, or did I suggest that your ban log shows that you can't WP:DROPTHESTICK when it comes to you disagreeing with someone? You were the one to bring up edit history when you tried turning it into a big dick contest over having been a "top contributor".
- "I would accept your explanation, if it were reasonable, but it's not." - Mate, this isn't a kangaroo court where you're the biased judge, jury and executioner. Get over yourself, get over the issuer and WP:DOSOMETHINGELSE - J man708 (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. This is a kangaroo court, run by an Australian (I do see the irony there), where you're the biased judge, jury and executioner. Get over yourself and take your own advice. Walter Görlitz (talk)
- How many edit wars have you been involved in? How many times have you been banned? How many times have you said that you wouldn't edit war again? Pot, meet kettle. - J man708 (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My edit warring history is immaterial to your adding suspicious information without an edit summary and adding it back with an edit summary that was spurious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong again, Walter. It shows that you have a blatant disregard for the rules when they don't suit your motifs - Akin to the justification as to why you edit war on your Userpage. When the rules do work for you, you WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM in order to push them to a third revert and then run off and tell the admins. It's pathetic. - J man708 (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- O do tell me more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this how a top contributor should conduct themself? - J man708 (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- [1]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll rephrase myself. How can I take anything you say seriously if you have a history for blatantly disregarding the rules? Why should I care that you believe I've done wrong when in fact, you yourself are guilty of much higher offenses. Again, pot meet kettle. - J man708 (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- False equivalence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So what, do as you say, not as you do? Feel free to tell me how it's false equivalence, then. - J man708 (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No need. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what's the issue?. - J man708 (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there an issue? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not for me. That's why I didn't bring anything to the talk page. - J man708 (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Very. - J man708 (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, so is there anything else you wish to discuss about the 2018 MLS season page? Otherwise I'll have to ask you to not to spam this talk page. - J man708 (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SPAM? No. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaaaaanyway, how's this for a compromise that works for both of us? - J man708 (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not per WP:TPO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- At least I'm trying to end this amicably. What have you contributed besides more problems? - J man708 (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, let's both please leave it at that. - J man708 (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Would I be able to delete this nonsensical discussion? Nobody wins from having it here, tbh. - J man708 (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It’s fine to remain here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, no issue. - J man708 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Auspicious! Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. - J man708 (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet you follow with an inauspicious response. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just doing what you did an indent or two ago now, by giving a one word response. It's amazing how you have an answer for everything except being able to find a way to end this conversation. It's why I bring up the idea of deleting this discussion. It's pretty clearly the best option, not only for both of us, but for this talk page to not be 20 miles long. If it's so desperately necessary for you to have the last word, then you delete this nonsense. Either way, this shit needs to go. - J man708 (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not always one word. As I read once, "it's amazing how you have an answer for everything except being able to find a way to end this conversation." Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Then just delete it? That way we both are content with the status quo and a compromise has been reached. - J man708 (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It’s fine to remain here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? What's wrong with deleting it and creating a truce? - J man708 (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? You could just walk away. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this conversation started with you. Why is it that you're allowed X comments to me, but I'm only allowed X minus 1? - J man708 (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about tit-for-tat, you could walk because the presence of this discussion and its continuance annoys you more than it does me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what is it about for you? I'm not annoyed at all. Quite happy, actually. - J man708 (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Answered many times. Feel free to re-read to get your answer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem not to understand what I'm asking. What's wrong with making a truce here, deleting the conversation and leaving it. Also, if this for you is not about tit-for-tat, then why is it that many of your responses haven't answered the questions? If you're trying to show me the error of my ways, then do so. Right now, you're just telling me that everything I say is wrong and it seems that you're just retorting to everything in order to "win" this discussion. - J man708 (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
