User talk:Quasicrystal

User:Quasicrystal
Am I reading these edit histories correctly, did this user ask take down his whole book be taken down over frustration about 's? Thenub314 (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I still wish new pages would have BookCat added to them by default, but I had added it to the edit toolbar, so that's the next best thing. But they somehow had an edit conflict editing a page and couldn't figure out how to go back and copy-paste their content into the changed page.  Before requesting the book to be blown away, they had already moved the book from its original name and orphaned about 90% of the content they had produced with changes to the table of contents.  A bit out of proportion, but nobody else contributed to the pages, so they do qualify for speedy deletion.   – Adrignola talk 11:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah they certainly did fall under speedy, you did the right thing, I am just a bit surprised. It seemed the book was only just started.  Somehow I was hoping I missed spotting something more annoying then edit conflicts at the root of it, but it doesn't seem so.  Not only would hitting back have worked but there is also the second second edit box? Oh well, what can be done, it is just a shame. Thenub314 (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (w:WP:TPS) Is it in the enhanced toolbar? If it isn't, can you add it there as well? Thanks Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 12:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to say something about my behavior on talk pages? Am I a WikiJaguar? Or did you point to the wrong shortcut? – Adrignola talk 12:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're not; I am. :) So, can you add it on the enhanced toolbar? Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you want added? Are you wanting the userbox?  The toolbar above the edit box I'm not sure I can edit.  The shortcuts for special characters below the edit box, I can. – Adrignola talk 13:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, that one. I must have misunderstood... Thanks but which kind of symbol is it? Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're the one who wanted something added... I'm thoroughly confused. – Adrignola talk 13:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just now you said you added the BookCat to the toolbar. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 14:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It just looks like BookCat; to the left of talk 14:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Thenub, seeing the non-blanked talk page of the user, I see that there was frustration over BookCat and that an edit of mine caused the edit conflict. I'm not going to apologize for adding BookCats, however.  Especially when someone decides to start blanking my talk page. – Adrignola talk 14:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there is clearly no need to apologize. I was surprised by the extreme reaction over such a small thing.  I only noticed because I went to find author of one of the new calc books that was started to invite him to join the math project, when I couldn't find it I realized it was they same person who blanked your page and started looking at edit histories.  Well if he ever cools down and happens upon this conversation I would suggest the WB:RFU's his book and carries on with the productive edits.  But if he can't remember to assume good faith and discuss his frustrations more constructively he probably should find another outlet.  He didn't even make clear why he was upset to anyone. Thenub314 (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not that I "couldn't figure out how to go back and copy-paste", it's that my back history didn't contain the text. I 'blanked' your talk page because you reverted my earlier comment from it anyway, so I don't see it as a big deal if you're just going to revert it anyway. "He didn't even make clear why he was upset to anyone" Yes I did, it's on my talk page which has been deleted anonymously for some strange reason. Quasicrystal (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the full text of your comment: "God dammit I just lost my edit because of a merge conflict". Quite frankly your comment appeared to be vandalism, and I didn't revert.  I performed an undo and left a comment in the edit summary.  That's more than I could have done given the content.  Treat me with respect and you'll get the same in return. – Adrignola talk 02:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * When have I not treated you with respect? "That's more than I could have done given the content" I don't give a fuck if you want to threaten to ban me, I'm not asking anything from you. Also I have no idea what the difference between a revert and an undo is. Quasicrystal (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith and discussing things constructively as Thenub mentions above would be a good start. Remarks on my talk page out of nowhere that I'm left to take as someone yelling at me over something I have no control over are what I consider disrespectful. Frankly, if you're not asking anything of me and won't refrain from trying to escalate the situation, stop posting to my talk page. – Adrignola talk 02:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * um reason for posting here isn't because I want something from you. It's because the title of the thread is User:Quasicrystal. And I have no idea what all this "Assume good faith" nonsense is about. I know fine well you didn't do this maliciously or to irritate me. "trying to escalate the situation" I'm not very happy with that accusation, since there isn't anything to be constructed (I gave up on writing the book for example) I can only assume "discuss constructively" is code for "go away so I can vilify you". Quasicrystal (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Our sister project, Wikipedia, has a page which summarises all aspects of the phrase 'assume good faith'. (TPS) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 03:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * no I've read this. I'm saying it doesn't apply here Quasicrystal (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and let me chime in here with a couple of thoughts. First and foremost communication over on a wiki is somehow less then perfect. It is easy to read several different meanings into written statement. So it is very easy to misinterpret something someone has written and find it offensive of combative. Because of this most wiki's have a policy along the lines of assume good faith. Basically we are all hear trying to help out in one way or another, and we often disagree. Assuming good faith basically means to assume that everyone here is trying to help, no one is intentionally being combative or disruptive.

A more constructive way to take your frustration about edit conflicts would have been to leave a message on Adrignloa's talk page to the effect.

"Could you please knock off adding nonsensical BookCat templates to the pages of my book, it is causing edit conflicts and making it very difficult to do my work"

I am guessing he would have basically to the effect of "Either you handle or I will." But no matter what he said, it gets across your point much better than blanking his talk page. As a matter of culture on wiki's blanking a page is considered very rude and disruptive. I don't blame you for not knowing this, your knew around here, and as you say it can always be reverted. But, for better or worse blanking a page is the equivalent of "spitting on a mans shoes", it is just something seen as extremely rude. And he probably didn't notice changes at your page, because he didn't in the beginning have a reason to be looking at it. None of us did really.

This is because for technical reasons it is very useful to correctly categorize the pages. But you can't blame him for edit conflicts. They happen all the time and no one intends them. If you change your mind about your book, or want to contribute in some other way, please do. Just be a little more patient with other people. If you can't, then understand editing at a wiki will not work out for you long term. If you change your mind about a book, anything that was deleted can be undeleted by posting a message at this page.

Remember, things you write are often not read the way you might mean them to be. This, for example, is be best reason not to use expletives in conversations, the are just too emotionally charged and will certainly be taken the wrong way. Thenub314 (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's interesting because he irreversibly (for me) deleted my talk page Quasicrystal (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't provide a false view of the situation to make me look bad. At that point I was aware of your frustrations and you blanked your talk page, which, in user space for one's own pages or on normal pages where one is the only contributor, is equivalent to requesting deletion; that seemed reasonable to me because it appeared that you desired to leave.  Either contribute constructively or stop this vendetta against me.  Thenub has provided some very nice advice and you should take it. Start by assuming that your talk page was deleted at your implicit request, just as your book pages were deleted at your explicit request. – Adrignola talk 12:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no vendetta. You're imagining it. Quasicrystal (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)