User talk:Chocolateboy/Snakes on a Plane

This is the subpage for a discussion with an anonymous editor. According to that editor he or she is not a sockpuppet of Guerillafilm. [1] According to me he or she is.

Enough is Enough. I've had it with your personal attacks against moi on this article. ;)

Enough of this rubbish mate. I'm no'one's sockpuppet & unaware of your dispute with editor Guerilafilms. We have never met mister & I prefer "civility" in these exchanges, inviting you to work with me to better the SoaP article. Knee-jerks attacks on my person are no brainer violations against long-established wikipedia guidelines of good faith and civility. WP:FAITH WP:CIV

Perhaps a reminder is in order:

WP:CIV Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:

   * Rudeness (Your incendiary & persistent sarcasm).
   * Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("Calling me a sockpuppet")
   * Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice (Assuming anyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet)
   * Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (Calling me a sockpuppet based  upon one or two edits from my IP)
   * Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..." ("If you have an objection to being called out on your sockpuppetry" Chocolateboy)
   * Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.(Mister you're making it clear with your behavior that you haven't the slighest desire to resolve this dispute peacefully).

More serious examples include:

   * Defacing user pages (Your knee-jerk use of banners. Why not 'ask me' first before vandalizing my userpage?)
   * Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove trolling (Unfairly labeling moi a "sockpuppet")
   * Calling for bans or blocks (Threatening to ban me by pointing to other users who have been banned, tsk, tsk.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.89.57 (talk • contribs)

Patently wrong argumentation built from manipulative logic & fueled by knee-jerk personal attacks. Please play nice bloke.

<IAN 71.208.89.57 07:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wan'na work this out?

Maybe there're sockpuppets you've dealt with previously, however, that is not my concern here 'bloke'.

Indeed you speak the truth that a caption is no place to explain a bold opinionated assertion about a polarizing cinematic experience. Hence forth, the source of my dispute. Your assertion doesn't belongs inside a caption. Why not move it to somewhere 'else' in the article so you can quote the proper publications correctly? Cramming your opinionated assertion into a caption is a deceptive way to pass an opinion off as fact & I could not find any sources currently or recently claiming the noteriety of this bit of dialogue, hence my use of the words 'hype.' A "famous" movie would be discussed repeatedly in past, 'present' and future, don'cha think mate? This is not the case which is why I don't personally any of this. However, I agree the noteriety of the dialogue should be discussed in some form & you indeed listed some valid sources. Why not move the contribution to the history section in order to properly cite "famous" because the caption is no place for it.

Let's get along bloke & be good mates. Life's good mister so smile. :) Let us be friends. 71.208.89.57 01:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Words of Wisdom. Accept my apology mate?

Bobblehead shared these words of wisdom with moi on my userpage, mate, & I will share them with you. :)

"I'm not going to pick sides in this, but it's rather clear that Chocolateboy (talk · contribs) may have you confused with Guerillafilm (talk · contribs) who made very similar changes to the Snakes on a Plane article as the ones you are doing. A look at your edit history and Guerillafilm's seems to indicate that you aren't a sockpuppet, but are just making coincidental edits. However, as constructive criticism I will point out that your edit summaries have bordered on personal attacks (accusing Chocolateboy of WP:OWN[2] and WP:Wikilawyering[3]). That is not a good way to start a discussion on content and naturally turns the target against you. Also, your first attempt to talk to Chocolateboy was to warn him against vandalism when his reversion of your edits was a simple content dispute[4] and then to lecture him on how to edit on Wikipedia[5] when he's been editting on wikipedia since 2003. A better course of action would be to take the content issue to the SoaP talk page and find out why Chocolateboy was reverting your changes. As a suggestion, I would start by not reverting the article and to discuss the inclusion of "famous" and "catchphrase" on the talk page and try to gain consensus around it's removal. All in all, the sockpuppet label could be a simple mistake on the part of Chocolateboy and if you engage him in a civil manner you may find an apology for the label forthcoming." --Bobblehead 02:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

The fellow's wisdom pleases me & sets straight my mind.

Would you please accept my humble apology for misjudging you chap & my earlier lecturing? The other business regarding your 'sockpuppetry worries' may very well be a misunderstanding. As my provocation brought about this ugly business I shall interpret such pettiness as water under the bridge chap & perhaps you were defending your honor after I pushed your buttons, understandable behavior if you believed to have been insulted. Was I insulting you? Let me apologize henceforth for your injury by my actions. Let us bury the hatchet mate? I shall promise to avoid editing the SoaP piece in return for a meeting to peacefully deliberate on the usertalk SoaP. My invitation goes out to you to collaborate with moi on the SoaP userpage so we shall reach an agreement we can live with comfortably. How say you chap? Shall I patiently await your answer? ;) Bloke, my promise goes out to you- I shall avoid editing the disputed contribution until we shall again next speakth.71.208.89.57 07:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]