User talk:Snowball II - Revision history

Solar Dragon at 18:23, October 27, 2024

2024-10-27T18:23:36Z

Snowball II at 17:51, October 27, 2024

2024-10-27T17:51:42Z

Snowball II at 14:42, October 27, 2024

2024-10-27T14:42:02Z

Snowball II at 14:38, October 27, 2024

2024-10-27T14:38:04Z

Solar Dragon: /* Last warning */

2024-10-27T13:00:22Z

‎Last warning

Snowball II at 05:26, October 27, 2024

2024-10-27T05:26:36Z

Snowball II at 00:23, October 27, 2024

2024-10-27T00:23:09Z

Snowball II at 00:22, October 27, 2024

2024-10-27T00:22:27Z

Snowball II at 00:17, October 27, 2024

2024-10-27T00:17:09Z

Snowball II at 00:16, October 27, 2024

2024-10-27T00:16:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, October 27, 2024
Line 323:		Line 323:

	::I've gone on about how you come across, but I don't want to come across as just a downer and if I have, I apologize since it's not what I wanted you to get from this. Even if you think any point is unfair, my point is what does it matter? Fair or not, there is no review for you. I point them out since more often than not you try to be a helpful contributor in our interactions and you take constructive suggestions to heart. I really just kind of defending myself since you're being unfair in your retelling of this. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 13:50, October 27, 2024 (EDT)		::I've gone on about how you come across, but I don't want to come across as just a downer and if I have, I apologize since it's not what I wanted you to get from this. Even if you think any point is unfair, my point is what does it matter? Fair or not, there is no review for you. I point them out since more often than not you try to be a helpful contributor in our interactions and you take constructive suggestions to heart. I really just kind of defending myself since you're being unfair in your retelling of this. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 13:50, October 27, 2024 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Block {{#if:\|{{{number}}}}} ==
		+
		+	{\| {\| align="center" width="100%" style="background: #FFE0FF; -moz-border-radius:20px; -webkit-border-radius:20px; border-radius:20px; border: 5px solid red;"
		+	\|-
		+	\|style="padding:5px 5px 5px;"\|[[File:Stop.png\|60px]]
		+	\|style="padding:5px 5px 5px;"\|<center>{{Quote\|'''Thank you, come again!'''\|[[Apu Nahasapeemapetilon]]}}</center>You have been {{#switch:permaban\|permaban = '''permanently blocked''' from this wiki\|period = '''blocked''' for a period of '''{{{time}}}'''\|'''blocked''' from editing this wiki}} due to disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding your reasons below, and your appeal will be reviewed by the blocking admin.
		+
		+	<div style="text-align:right;"><span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 14:23, October 27, 2024 (EDT)</div>
		+	\|}
		+	:I've had enough of your constant attitude and failure to listen and obey the wiki's policies. Enjoy your permanent ban. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 14:23, October 27, 2024 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:51, October 27, 2024
Line 313:		Line 313:
	:: The last time you blocked me for a month, you admitted I hadn't actually violated any rule and it still stood. I quote the revert rule and you admitted it wasn't in violation, but you told me it was still at your discretion. I've made my peace with this website being at your discretion, but I don't agree with you on some stuff and you are making the exact opposite case (we have to with real-world here when the show used the opposite). There is a goofs section for every episode, so yeah, mistakes can and do get made. I've made my peace with you not agreeing with me on this or that and I get your case, I just disagree. You talk about how it would just easier to block me (which despite being a common refrain is still hurtful to read after all the editing I've done), but on my end (I do try to see it from your side) it would be easier to just flatter you no end or tell you how wise you are in every circumstance and I'm never in right. There's no benefit to disagreeing with you since there is no recourse on my end, there are no other admins to review your block decision like a regular wiki. I know it would be easier to just tell you I totally agree with your take and not a single inconsistency with your previous takes. I don't wish to bum you out or make being on the website a displeasure, but being told you want to block me (which can happen even without a rule violation) is hurtful and yes, I'd rather defuse it. You still going to throw back stuff at me again and again since you admitted unfair treatment such as stubbornness or having too high opinion of yourself or lack of knowledge or unreasoned aggression as motive rather than a policy violation, but I don't think to apply your omissions to every circumstances nor accuses you of it since I appreciated your candor back then. Also I admitted to that stuff thinking having a snity attitude isn't nice and sometime to stop, but it was not, in itself, a rule violation and also thought placating some of your accusations at the time on how you were already convinced I was doing stuff to irritate you might help my case at the time except now, despite the cavoites I made at the time, it seems it's the only way you view most of your interactions.		:: The last time you blocked me for a month, you admitted I hadn't actually violated any rule and it still stood. I quote the revert rule and you admitted it wasn't in violation, but you told me it was still at your discretion. I've made my peace with this website being at your discretion, but I don't agree with you on some stuff and you are making the exact opposite case (we have to with real-world here when the show used the opposite). There is a goofs section for every episode, so yeah, mistakes can and do get made. I've made my peace with you not agreeing with me on this or that and I get your case, I just disagree. You talk about how it would just easier to block me (which despite being a common refrain is still hurtful to read after all the editing I've done), but on my end (I do try to see it from your side) it would be easier to just flatter you no end or tell you how wise you are in every circumstance and I'm never in right. There's no benefit to disagreeing with you since there is no recourse on my end, there are no other admins to review your block decision like a regular wiki. I know it would be easier to just tell you I totally agree with your take and not a single inconsistency with your previous takes. I don't wish to bum you out or make being on the website a displeasure, but being told you want to block me (which can happen even without a rule violation) is hurtful and yes, I'd rather defuse it. You still going to throw back stuff at me again and again since you admitted unfair treatment such as stubbornness or having too high opinion of yourself or lack of knowledge or unreasoned aggression as motive rather than a policy violation, but I don't think to apply your omissions to every circumstances nor accuses you of it since I appreciated your candor back then. Also I admitted to that stuff thinking having a snity attitude isn't nice and sometime to stop, but it was not, in itself, a rule violation and also thought placating some of your accusations at the time on how you were already convinced I was doing stuff to irritate you might help my case at the time except now, despite the cavoites I made at the time, it seems it's the only way you view most of your interactions.
	:: The "get one passed you" was just the idea of having to make the final decision on everything and hoping for more looseness or open to style ideas that are not to your taste. The whole "cave" stuff just seems very winner/loser. No, I'm not saying in every instant or that consistency and coherent style are unimportant. Yes, you cited stuff like nude scene page pr Grand Central Station (where I was just quoting the episode and the first line of the Wikipedia page and you made sure to note it didn't really matter to you either way), but it doesn't really apply since it's usually style and cannon which take up so much of our disagreements. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 10:37, October 27, 2024 (EDT)		:: The "get one passed you" was just the idea of having to make the final decision on everything and hoping for more looseness or open to style ideas that are not to your taste. The whole "cave" stuff just seems very winner/loser. No, I'm not saying in every instant or that consistency and coherent style are unimportant. Yes, you cited stuff like nude scene page pr Grand Central Station (where I was just quoting the episode and the first line of the Wikipedia page and you made sure to note it didn't really matter to you either way), but it doesn't really apply since it's usually style and cannon which take up so much of our disagreements. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 10:37, October 27, 2024 (EDT)
		+	::You're being a bit revisionist in your retelling of our interactions which I'm noticing since you are still doing it.
		+	:::You stated Gracie Films writes the subtitles and I point out they don't as the multiple broadcasters each write up the subtitles and that's just ignored. I point out that subtitles have also been wrong and that you just stating the writers were wrong before is a proof point of being wrong now and it's ignored. You tell me to go to Talk Pages and your openness to discussion, but for all your takes on my attitude not so much the case when I make a point along the lines of your stated goal of not just going with one source without weighing it. i.e. the entire premise of the episode is remake of a specific movie or the entire character is spoof of Humphrey Bogart or that character is clearly or Fat Tony's wife isn't blonde since it's a wig and the only thing she does in the scene is get into a catfight which is exactly what she in the previous appearance or broader context that Bruno Wife Banger gag only works if Connie is his wife. And I'm rereading some of it and one thing to not agree, but you get upset from the start. Even typing it any broader context on the Talk Page (even my Talk Page) so unsure how that counts as part of your claims to being majorly openness of a free flowing discussion.
		+
		+	::I think the admission of irritating you with edits was ABOUT something along the line you were reverting some edits telling me I was wrong and I show you were wrong or uncover I was in the right so I put it back in which might be a petty motive, but it wasn't vandalism or an attempt to break the rules. I do have the image file of Sylvia Plath to episodes' appearances tabs to irritate you. I believed back at the time that whether you were irritated with sound edits wasn't a violation of any rule, but I've learned it doesn't matter so I try to not be on your bad side. Your omissions about mean-spiritedness were about blocks and reverts and while you noted you have to spend time and energy cleaning-up some rough edits by me, I'd just like to also note your not-so-nice actions towards me are a lot more stressful for me to deal it especially when you cite and disregard rules (the excuse ''I haven't had time to up the rules page'' is used frequently).
		+
		+	::Just try to see another side. Nobody can't block you for inserting false information when you wrote what's the official title when it's not nor block you for reverting more than once instead of going to the Talk Page. It's not an accusation, but just a fact. If you had an admin who admitted to you '''yesterday''' a basis towards your very existence on this website, you can see how that fictional admin can find a reason to follow through on a threat. And you most likely wouldn't want to be under near constant threat of blocks for edits even this admits concurs are good faith edits anymore than I do.
		+
		+	::I still don't get why you write "We" in your responses, but you noted "we" have multiple sources, you don't answer why did you need to look it up when you created the article. I mean what source is there for the spellings for all the cross-over characters in the subtitles. The difference is you know when it's a cross-over character like Sherlock Holmes or Luke Skywalker so you don't look it up as you wouldn't need to have a spelling in the subtitles and you admitted you did with Sen. Paine and I'm betting if you had watched ''Mr. Smith Goes To Washington'' multiple times and knew the movie well, you wouldn't have needed to check the subtitles for a spelling and there would be no issue and I don't get why I'm in the wrong for knowing about a movie you didn't. And I'm just reluctant to believe if the subtitles had it something like Luke Sky Walker that you go to bat this hard in the same way. But I bought into your whole a remake of ''Mr. Smith Goes To Washington'' within the episode won't be treated the same as the real world so now that you want this deference to the real-world names is a shift. I've written before and maintain a hope you'll change your mind, but the recapping of this stuff is more that which to broader idea of you change standards and don't seem to notice you have. When, you rationalize the change, but the point is you don't get even I dislike the new standard isn't what matters, but you acting like it's always been this way or I'm in violation for not knowing let alone pushing back.
		+
		+	::I've gone on about how you come across, but I don't want to come across as just a downer and if I have, I apologize since it's not what I wanted you to get from this. Even if you think any point is unfair, my point is what does it matter? Fair or not, there is no review for you. I point them out since more often than not you try to be a helpful contributor in our interactions and you take constructive suggestions to heart. I really just kind of defending myself since you're being unfair in your retelling of this. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 13:50, October 27, 2024 (EDT)

@@ Line 312: / Line 312: @@
 :So, I will reiterate, this is your last warning. Any more edit warring will result in a permanent block. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 09:00, October 27, 2024 (EDT)
 :: The last time you blocked me for a month, you admitted I hadn't actually violated any rule and it still stood. I quote the revert rule and you admitted it wasn't in violation, but you told me it was still at your discretion. I've made my peace with this website being at your discretion, but I don't agree with you on some stuff and you are making the exact opposite case (we have to with real-world here when the show used the opposite). There is a goofs section for every episode, so yeah, mistakes can and do get made. I've made my peace with you not agreeing with me on this or that and I get your case, I just disagree. You talk about how it would just easier to block me (which despite being a common refrain is still hurtful to read after all the editing I've done), but on my end (I do try to see it from your side) it would be easier to just flatter you no end or tell you how wise you are in every circumstance and I'm never in right. There's no benefit to disagreeing with you since there is no recourse on my end, there are no other admins to review your block decision like a regular wiki. I know it would be easier to just tell you I totally agree with your take and not a single inconsistency with your previous takes. I don't wish to bum you out or make being on the website a displeasure, but being told you want to block me (which can happen even without a rule violation) is hurtful and yes, I'd rather defuse it. You still going to throw back stuff at me again and again since you admitted unfair treatment such as stubbornness or having too high opinion of yourself or lack of knowledge or unreasoned aggression as motive rather than a policy violation, but I don't think to apply your omissions to every circumstances nor accuses you of it since I appreciated your candor back then. Also I admitted to that stuff thinking having a snity attitude isn't nice and sometime to stop, but it was not, in itself, a rule violation and also thought placating some of your accusations at the time on how you were already convinced I was doing stuff to irritate you might help my case at the time except now, despite the cavoites I made at the time, it seems it's the only way you view most of your interactions.
-:: The "get one passed you" was just the idea of having to make the final decision on everything and hoping for more looseness or open to style ideas that are not to your taste. The whole "cave" stuff just seems very winner/loser. No, I'm not saying in every instant or that consistency and coherent style are unimportant. Yes, you cited stuff like nude scene page pr Grand Central Station (where I was just quoting the episode and the first line of the Wikipedia page and you made sure to note it didn't really matter you either way), but it doesn't really apply since it's usually style and cannon which take up so much of our disagreements. [[User:Snowball II|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II|talk]]) 10:37, October 27, 2024 (EDT)
+:: The "get one passed you" was just the idea of having to make the final decision on everything and hoping for more looseness or open to style ideas that are not to your taste. The whole "cave" stuff just seems very winner/loser. No, I'm not saying in every instant or that consistency and coherent style are unimportant. Yes, you cited stuff like nude scene page pr Grand Central Station (where I was just quoting the episode and the first line of the Wikipedia page and you made sure to note it didn't really matter to you either way), but it doesn't really apply since it's usually style and cannon which take up so much of our disagreements. [[User:Snowball II|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II|talk]]) 10:37, October 27, 2024 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:38, October 27, 2024
Line 311:		Line 311:
	:Bringing up the Senator Payne thing again, we have multiple sources for the name, including the Simpsons World script and book. All say Payne. I always use multiple sources where possible to work out what to name an article. And if I can't come to a decision, I open it up to discussion. If every official source we have access to says that the character is named one way, that is what we go with. Doesn't matter what he's named in a real world film.		:Bringing up the Senator Payne thing again, we have multiple sources for the name, including the Simpsons World script and book. All say Payne. I always use multiple sources where possible to work out what to name an article. And if I can't come to a decision, I open it up to discussion. If every official source we have access to says that the character is named one way, that is what we go with. Doesn't matter what he's named in a real world film.
	:So, I will reiterate, this is your last warning. Any more edit warring will result in a permanent block. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 09:00, October 27, 2024 (EDT)		:So, I will reiterate, this is your last warning. Any more edit warring will result in a permanent block. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 09:00, October 27, 2024 (EDT)
		+	:: The last time you blocked me for a month, you admitted I hadn't actually violated any rule and it still stood. I quote the revert rule and you admitted it wasn't in violation, but you told me it was still at your discretion. I've made my peace with this website being at your discretion, but I don't agree with you on some stuff and you are making the exact opposite case (we have to with real-world here when the show used the opposite). There is a goofs section for every episode, so yeah, mistakes can and do get made. I've made my peace with you not agreeing with me on this or that and I get your case, I just disagree. You talk about how it would just easier to block me (which despite being a common refrain is still hurtful to read after all the editing I've done), but on my end (I do try to see it from your side) it would be easier to just flatter you no end or tell you how wise you are in every circumstance and I'm never in right. There's no benefit to disagreeing with you since there is no recourse on my end, there are no other admins to review your block decision like a regular wiki. I know it would be easier to just tell you I totally agree with your take and not a single inconsistency with your previous takes. I don't wish to bum you out or make being on the website a displeasure, but being told you want to block me (which can happen even without a rule violation) is hurtful and yes, I'd rather defuse it. You still going to throw back stuff at me again and again since you admitted unfair treatment such as stubbornness or having too high opinion of yourself or lack of knowledge or unreasoned aggression as motive rather than a policy violation, but I don't think to apply your omissions to every circumstances nor accuses you of it since I appreciated your candor back then. Also I admitted to that stuff thinking having a snity attitude isn't nice and sometime to stop, but it was not, in itself, a rule violation and also thought placating some of your accusations at the time on how you were already convinced I was doing stuff to irritate you might help my case at the time except now, despite the cavoites I made at the time, it seems it's the only way you view most of your interactions.
		+	:: The "get one passed you" was just the idea of having to make the final decision on everything and hoping for more looseness or open to style ideas that are not to your taste. The whole "cave" stuff just seems very winner/loser. No, I'm not saying in every instant or that consistency and coherent style are unimportant. Yes, you cited stuff like nude scene page pr Grand Central Station (where I was just quoting the episode and the first line of the Wikipedia page and you made sure to note it didn't really matter you either way), but it doesn't really apply since it's usually style and cannon which take up so much of our disagreements. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 10:37, October 27, 2024 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:00, October 27, 2024
Line 306:		Line 306:

	My concern right is defusing the threat of block and I'd rather do it now than after. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 20:22, October 26, 2024 (EDT)		My concern right is defusing the threat of block and I'd rather do it now than after. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 20:22, October 26, 2024 (EDT)
		+
		+	:You're not going to be defusing any threat of banning. This is your last warning. I'm not going to take that back. One more rule infraction and I will be permanently banning you, this time without repealing it. It's not because of this one infraction, it's because of all the warnings and infractions that have happened. You've been told multiple times to take things to talk pages if you disagree with things. But time and time again, you've decided to go to edit warring instead. And yes, my mind may not change immediately. But it also leaves it open for others to come along and give their input at a later time.
		+	:You say that you're unsure how I look at it as you trying to get one past me? You've literally admitted in the past to repeatedly making the edits to try and get me to let them slide the next time. That is from you.
		+	:Bringing up the Senator Payne thing again, we have multiple sources for the name, including the Simpsons World script and book. All say Payne. I always use multiple sources where possible to work out what to name an article. And if I can't come to a decision, I open it up to discussion. If every official source we have access to says that the character is named one way, that is what we go with. Doesn't matter what he's named in a real world film.
		+	:So, I will reiterate, this is your last warning. Any more edit warring will result in a permanent block. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon\|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 09:00, October 27, 2024 (EDT)

@@ Line 298: / Line 298: @@
 Unsure how come you look as this as "cave" or "get one passed you" on style stuff you dislike. Also you take this on too. I mean if Mein had just stood wouldn't matter much, but you toke it on so it doesn't just fall on you when you take it up.
-The Grand Central Station situation was me convincing you and perhaps you'll agreed. I think you are confusing this since this isn't an issue of not ever changing your mind. My point is when you don't like something, you don't bit the bullet and just accept another way. There are things I dislike and I have to accept it, but never the other way around and I'm just unconvinced Sen. Paine will destroy the wiki just because you prefer the subtitles. [[User:Snowball II|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II|talk]]) 20:15, October 26, 2024 (EDT)
+The Grand Central Station situation was me convincing you and perhaps you'll agreed. I think you are confusing this since this isn't an issue of whether you ever chang your mind, but that the burden is always your mind has to be changed. My point is when you don't like something, you don't just accept another way. I know you often have your judgement alone to rely on, but this isn't the case when dealing with an active contributor. There are things I dislike and I have to accept it, but never the other way around and I'm just unconvinced Sen. Paine will destroy the wiki just because you prefer the subtitles. [[User:Snowball II|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II|talk]]) 20:15, October 26, 2024 (EDT)
-You are the one threating permeant blocks and than tell me I'm hostile!? In those discussion you point out my spelling mistake to make me out to a moron and I'm hostile!? I don't know why you lament progress since you've gotten what you wanted. Fine, you telling to now go to real world after telling me the show's reality isn't our reality and yet I'm not the one being hostile!?
+You are the one threating permeant blocks and than tell me I'm hostile!? I don't know why you lament progress since you've gotten what you wanted. Fine, you telling to now go to real world after telling me the show's reality isn't our reality and yet I'm not the one being hostile!?
 The wiki didn't go with lower case f since that is the bureaucratic speak to obfuscate rather than clarify since it was just you. That isn't hostile, but it's just how it went. You aren't balancing it. If a source might have been wrong before doesn't mean it's wrong now and the subtitles have been wrong before[http://www.reddit.com/r/Simpsons/comments/xz3i0w/whats_with_the_dialogue_being_different_from_the][http://www.reddit.com/r/TheSimpsons/comments/zf6qst/found_some_incorrect_subtitling_on_disney_for] which also wasn't weigh and not written by Gracie Films, but the broadcaster so if one watches on Disney+ or FOX or Channel 4 or whatever will have different subtitles.
 You are literally just citing one source and no rational or inference allowed. The show went out of way to tell us it's a remake of "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and made the character look and sound like Sen. Paine and oddly changed an i to y. I'd buy it more it the movie was retitled "Mr. Smyth Goes To Washington". I just say you cause, but the name was specifically used because the whole character is a spoof of Humphrey Bogart so his late name came from Bogart's middle name as was cited the writer the tweet for that, but not the capital F.

@@ Line 303: / Line 303: @@
 The wiki didn't go with lower case f since that is the bureaucratic speak to obfuscate rather than clarify since it was just you. That isn't hostile, but it's just how it went. You aren't balancing it. If a source might have been wrong before doesn't mean it's wrong now and the subtitles have been wrong before[http://www.reddit.com/r/Simpsons/comments/xz3i0w/whats_with_the_dialogue_being_different_from_the][http://www.reddit.com/r/TheSimpsons/comments/zf6qst/found_some_incorrect_subtitling_on_disney_for] which also wasn't weigh and not written by Gracie Films, but the broadcaster so if one watches on Disney+ or FOX or Channel 4 or whatever will have different subtitles.
 You are literally just citing one source and no rational or inference allowed. The show went out of way to tell us it's a remake of "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and made the character look and sound like Sen. Paine and oddly changed an i to y. I'd buy it more it the movie was retitled "Mr. Smyth Goes To Washington". I just say you cause, but the name was specifically used because the whole character is a spoof of Humphrey Bogart so his late name came from Bogart's middle name as was cited the writer the tweet for that, but not the capital F.
-You can rationalize any choice you like and I'll talk about Humphrey Bogart's middle or bag guys from Jimmy Stewart's movies all day long, but my concern right is defusing the threat of block and I'd rather do it now than after. [[User:Snowball II|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II|talk]]) 20:22, October 26, 2024 (EDT)
+You can rationalize any choice you like and I'll talk about Humphrey Bogart's middle or bag guys from Jimmy Stewart's movies all day long.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:22, October 27, 2024
Line 299:		Line 299:
	Unsure how come you look as this as "cave" or "get one passed you" on style stuff you dislike. Also you take this on too. I mean if Mein had just stood wouldn't matter much, but you toke it on so it doesn't just fall on you when you take it up.		Unsure how come you look as this as "cave" or "get one passed you" on style stuff you dislike. Also you take this on too. I mean if Mein had just stood wouldn't matter much, but you toke it on so it doesn't just fall on you when you take it up.
	The Grand Central Station situation was me convincing you and perhaps you'll agreed. I think you are confusing this since this isn't an issue of not ever changing your mind. My point is when you don't like something, you don't bit the bullet and just accept another way. There are things I dislike and I have to accept it, but never the other way around and I'm just unconvinced Sen. Paine will destroy the wiki just because you prefer the subtitles. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 20:15, October 26, 2024 (EDT)		The Grand Central Station situation was me convincing you and perhaps you'll agreed. I think you are confusing this since this isn't an issue of not ever changing your mind. My point is when you don't like something, you don't bit the bullet and just accept another way. There are things I dislike and I have to accept it, but never the other way around and I'm just unconvinced Sen. Paine will destroy the wiki just because you prefer the subtitles. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 20:15, October 26, 2024 (EDT)
		+
		+	You are the one threating permeant blocks and than tell me I'm hostile!? In those discussion you point out my spelling mistake to make me out to a moron and I'm hostile!? I don't know why you lament progress since you've gotten what you wanted. Fine, you telling to now go to real world after telling me the show's reality isn't our reality and yet I'm not the one being hostile!?
		+	The wiki didn't go with lower case f since that is the bureaucratic speak to obfuscate rather than clarify since it was just you. That isn't hostile, but it's just how it went. You aren't balancing it. If a source might have been wrong before doesn't mean it's wrong now and the subtitles have been wrong before[http://www.reddit.com/r/Simpsons/comments/xz3i0w/whats_with_the_dialogue_being_different_from_the][http://www.reddit.com/r/TheSimpsons/comments/zf6qst/found_some_incorrect_subtitling_on_disney_for] which also wasn't weigh and not written by Gracie Films, but the broadcaster so if one watches on Disney+ or FOX or Channel 4 or whatever will have different subtitles.
		+	You are literally just citing one source and no rational or inference allowed. The show went out of way to tell us it's a remake of "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and made the character look and sound like Sen. Paine and oddly changed an i to y. I'd buy it more it the movie was retitled "Mr. Smyth Goes To Washington". I just say you cause, but the name was specifically used because the whole character is a spoof of Humphrey Bogart so his late name came from Bogart's middle name as was cited the writer the tweet for that, but not the capital F.
		+	You can rationalize any choice you like and I'll talk about Humphrey Bogart's middle or bag guys from Jimmy Stewart's movies all day long, but my concern right is defusing the threat of block and I'd rather do it now than after. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 20:22, October 26, 2024 (EDT)

@@ Line 295: / Line 295: @@
 :::::::::You mention that I always get my own way. Just the other day I moved Grand Central Terminal back to Grand Central Station after you brought it up and offered evidence for it to be at that name on the talk page. I'm open to this. But also, I understand that I can be biased when it comes to you as my perception of you, not saying this is what you are doing but how it comes across to me, is that you are often hostile and demanding and you seem to treat it as a competition that you want to win against me. So, when it's just you and me discussing things, it's often likely that there will be no real progress made. If another person came along and offered their perspective, that would sway things. Hell, you're free to ask other users if they could give their opinion on things on their talk pages. I would absolutely love nothing more than to have more discussions about things so that not everything falls to me to decide. Especially when it comes to changes you're proposing. Unfortunately, we don't have users frequently taking part in discussions and it will often just end up with either forgotten messages or you and me going back and forth until one of us gives up. And neither of us enjoys that. <span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span> 19:33, October 26, 2024 (EDT)
-You write a lot about how I come across. I've wrote this before, but a threat to get blocked for a minor offense (and even if the offense actually happened) doesn't come across the friendly concern. It's hostile. [[User:Snowball II|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II|talk]]) 20:14, October 26, 2024 (EDT)
+You write a lot about how I come across. I've wrote this before, but a threat to get blocked for a minor offense (and even if the offense actually happened) doesn't come across the friendly concern. It's hostile. [[User:Snowball II|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II|talk]]) 20:14, October 26, 2024 (EDT
 Unsure how come you look as this as "cave" or "get one passed you" on style stuff you dislike. Also you take this on too. I mean if Mein had just stood wouldn't matter much, but you toke it on so it doesn't just fall on you when you take it up.
 The Grand Central Station situation was me convincing you and perhaps you'll agreed. I think you are confusing this since this isn't an issue of not ever changing your mind. My point is when you don't like something, you don't bit the bullet and just accept another way. There are things I dislike and I have to accept it, but never the other way around and I'm just unconvinced Sen. Paine will destroy the wiki just because you prefer the subtitles. [[User:Snowball II|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II|talk]]) 20:15, October 26, 2024 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:16, October 27, 2024
Line 296:		Line 296:

	You write a lot about how I come across. I've wrote this before, but a threat to get blocked for a minor offense (and even if the offense actually happened) doesn't come across the friendly concern. It's hostile. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 20:14, October 26, 2024 (EDT)		You write a lot about how I come across. I've wrote this before, but a threat to get blocked for a minor offense (and even if the offense actually happened) doesn't come across the friendly concern. It's hostile. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 20:14, October 26, 2024 (EDT)
		+	Unsure how come you look as this as "cave" or "get one passed you" on style stuff you dislike. Also you take this on too. I mean if Mein had just stood wouldn't matter much, but you toke it on so it doesn't just fall on you when you take it up.
		+	The Grand Central Station situation was me convincing you and perhaps you'll agreed. I think you are confusing this since this isn't an issue of not ever changing your mind. My point is when you don't like something, you don't bit the bullet and just accept another way. There are things I dislike and I have to accept it, but never the other way around and I'm just unconvinced Sen. Paine will destroy the wiki just because you prefer the subtitles. [[User:Snowball II\|Snowball II]] ([[User talk:Snowball II\|talk]]) 20:15, October 26, 2024 (EDT)