User talk:LazloFeelo
Welcome![edit]
  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 100... 200
  Hello, LazloFeelo, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Sam Sailor and I would like to thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun! To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
If you need further help, you can: or even: Alternatively, place
Again, welcome, and happy editing!
This welcome message was sent by Sam Sailor Sing 23:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC) |
Lazlo's Talk Page (don't forget to sign your posts)
you have it backward[edit]
Please correct your obvious mistake on GFII. The other editor is trying to make the change and, lacking a consensus since two of us disagree (me and the original editor), that editor should take it to discussion to try to gain a consensus. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
April 2014[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Tiptoety talk 18:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
LazloFeelo, Thank you for your actions![edit]
With each of these actions I always hope that the same situations will not re-emerge but unfortunately it seems to happen far too many times with the same person. I see that you have been sanctioned as well but if you do not get involved then how can any one hope for there to be change. It is one thing to live with the rules and put up a good fight but why does it seem that ONE person repeatedly in article editing make what should be a potentially intense writing activity into a gladiatorial exhibition to the death in the Coliseum? The other party has some flawed perception about just what should go on in this experience. Early on in my experience I found this type of situation bothersome and basically was told that personal actions are not the purview of WP review. Bullying only encourages deep resentment that can only but re-emerge later, stunt a movement and make those that do not work against it to appear as supporters of it. I hope no one has to go again through this experience. Now, let's see what happens .......76.170.88.72 (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, RC has returned to that tactic of sock puppetry (or as expressed on that person's talk page--stylistic similarities) in order to, I guess, develop support for the actions and positions taken in the past. This person will never change. If you continue with the field of cinema obviously there will be more opportunities to interact with that person. I have taken a back seat to contributing as much as I did in the past and check my contributions to see if things have changed if what I contributed was found to be less than what others might want for an article. I then also check to see to what some other participants are involved. Some people are apt to immediately revert without explanation or some edit summary that gives you little as to what was the problem. If you do not mind, I would like to add you to my list of people that I see what contributions they are making since there are so many subject areas of WP to become familiar, as well as what "controversies" are in progress. WP contributors need to call attention to that which is not to the long term benefit of WP. I didn't realize that you had a previous posted interaction from RC that used that tactic of saying you had it "backwards". The latest interaction with the admin that blocked RC was to compel the admin to recognize that the contributor was in the process of reverting to the original text when either the 3R violation was filed or when the block came through in order for this violation to be classified as a mistake or misunderstanding. RC is well aware of the rules having played them on many others so to persist in this is just plain mind boggling. At least others are recognizing the strategies and patterns of RC and an understanding admin saw fit to consider that when issuing the block.76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)