User talk:Backbone of ancient greek armies

Welcome!

Hello, Backbone of ancient greek armies, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

I will get you for your vandalism of the article. Htf is anyone going to find info about the single in the 1998 World Cup page? You are really being rather dull.

Also your comments re "abuse" of templates is absurd -I was merely pointing out where people had vandalised Wikipedia. Backbone of ancient greek armies (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make threats or you will be blocked longer.Abce2|TalkSign 22:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no dear, that wasn't a theats it was a personal insult. Clearly you are too slow to recognise the difference. Why don't you go and play in the road? Backbone of ancient greek armies (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way both will get you a longer block. Stop. Abce2|TalkSign 22:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but i'll play the long game, and ensure that my valid content is not deleted in such arbitrary fashion.

Sorry. If you post something here, anyone can change it. And you also don't own the article.

WP:OWNAbce2|TalkSign 22:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No but they can't delete it out of hand, can they? Backbone of ancient greek armies (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can.Abce2|TalkSign 22:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No really they can't. If I went and vandalised Barack Obama by redirecting him into United States, I'd get another block. But I would be doing exactly what was just done to the page what I wrote. Backbone of ancient greek armies (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Everybody calls everything vandalism, brains go into neutral and everyone acts like they're nothing more than support systems for adrenaline receptors. Hysteria ensues.

1. Everybody stop calling BOAGA's edits vandalism; they aren't.
2. BOAGA, stop calling their edits vandalism. They aren't. Vandalism means intentionally damaging the Encyclopedia.
3. The redirect you folks keep edit warring (yes, you're all edit warring) to keep is a pretty useless redirect.
4. Like it or not, BOAGA, if you start editing, and right after start flinging around personal attacks and vandalism templates, you're going to get blocked. You can wear it as a badge of honor if you want, but that seems a rather odd decision.
5. There are ways to handle content disputes. None of you are following them.

Why not ignore any further trolling on your talk page, wait 24 hours (promising to continue personal attacks is guaranteed to get a block extension, not an unblock, so you ain't gonna get anything done today), then have a conversation about this on the talk page of the article? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, you're being far too reasonable. Backbone of ancient greek armies (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backbone, I have no knowledge of the article in question, and my original reversion of your edit was simply because you undid my bot's fixing of the double redirect calling it 'VANDALISM'. Putting vandal warning templates on my and the bot's talk page days after the fact, without any reference to what you're actually complaining about is singularly unhelpful. If you feel I or one of my bots have made an error, please come to me and say "you screwed up", and I'll work with you to fix it, but how you're handling the situation at the moment is simply antagonistic and feckless. ShakingSpirit^talk 23:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Following on from this, what was this[1] revert about? To quote from

WP:CSD, The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance. The article does so, and so doesn't fall under A7 - PROD it or take it to AfD, but it's not a speedy. Regardless however, my gripe is that you simply added a {{delete}} tag with 'this is crap', and left a vandalism warning on my page, without attempting any dialog on either the article's talk page nor mine. It's good to be bold and IAR, but if you're going to make a change which flies in the face of consensus, atleast let people know what you're doing and why. ShakingSpirit^talk 23:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I apologize. Also I accidentally did not see the phrase "out of hand" in BOGA's comment, so my response was probaly wrong. Abce2|TalkSign 23:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article