User talk:Mwarcn

Actually, our edits simply conflicted in the times they were posted. Get your facts straight before you're warned as well. Mwarcn (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted? First, you wanted the TUF Finalist match to be the page, then when it was added, you removed it. Also, what possible reason would you have for giving ME a warning? I've done nothing wrong according to the rules. Thank you Paralympiakos (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you had taken the time to read what was posted then you would understand what I was trying to explain. By this response from you, it has become obvious that you have not. Here it is, simple as it can be. First, it is already implied that there will be at least two finalists. That is the point of a finale. To post that there will be two finalists is unnecessary. Second, I was simply explaining that youtube was not a credible source on its own. When it is backed up on an accredited media website, then it becomes valid. That was the reasoning behind my edits. For you to simply dismiss them as vandalism is contradictory to what you claim to stand for since I am simply stating the truth. As for your warning, you're earning that with your childish claims of how you hope I am banned. Mwarcn (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, it wasn't me who added "TUF Finalist 1 vs. ....." That was someone else. You happened to remove that at the same time as removing Schoonover. When I undid the revision of Schoonover, the TUF Finalist went with it, so I was accidentally readding it each time. However, you did ask for something to be added to show the finalists being on the card, so that last message seems odd. I'm hoping that if you get another warning, then you're banned, yeah. That's because of the hell you've put me through today. If you're willing to stop making ridiculous claims, treating me like a simpleton and calling me childish, then I'm willing to keep quiet in return. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a editing mistake as you claim, it would have been much simpler and smarter to explain that then brushing my opinion aside as vandalism. At no time did I ever ask for something to be added. Where you got that from I do not know. The sole purpose of my argument was to explain what should not be posted. I know you're not a simpleton and as you can tell, without attempting to sound egotistical, I am definitely not one either. Both of our actions today are being treated as childish, and they should be. However, if you really want to stand for truth on this site, then show more guidance. A quick to condemn attitude is not the mature route. Take a note from Materialscientist. You may still be mad about the conflict today but you are better off simply getting over it and moving on. I have no plans on being banned. If you find this disappointing then that's something you're going to have to learn to live with and not post about it on my talk page. Happy editing. Mwarcn (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er.. It is allowed for a user to clear their talk, though it might be treated impolite. This is not an issue here. The way I see the situation, Mwarcn did behave overly hostile to Paralympiakos and both parties lost patience at some point. I do hope the parties have enough strength to forgive each other and to resume a civil communication if and when necessary. I am sure you both understand the meaning of those tags and shall not use them again each other. Materialscientist (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. The hostility is gone on my end. I am now simply trying to make sure the other party understands the balance of the rule system that they claim to enforce, without violating it on my end. Mwarcn (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There is no unequality. There could be WP:DISPUTE, which happen often (well, not to the degree of admin involvement) and can be resolved by usual means. Happy editing. Materialscientist (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your continued involvement in this matter. Your guidance as an actual administrator is refreshing and much appreciated.