User talk:BDJP007301

Editing other's userspace
I'd just like to remind you not to edit other people's userspaces. Instead you can suggest changes via their talk page. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs 19:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a good rule, though in this particular case I don't mind, because BDJP is a user with whom I have a good working relationship, and on top of that, had it been an accurate edit, it would have been something I'd have done anyway myself. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 19:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, no worries if there is a mutual agreement. –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs 11:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Scoreboard page
Was that fold made on purpose?I'm confused...Kakagou12341 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

--
 &spades; I hearby award this

GNU32 NEON BADGE OF

EXCELLENCE

to the user

&spades; :D – LauraFi -  talk  01:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you! -BDJP (t 01:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixes sections
I'm sorry to hear your decision to retire from the fixes section – you've been doing an excellent job keeping us up to date. Pulling that weight without you would be tough. Here is the blue orchid of my appreciation. Would you mind, at some point, making available any JQL queries you happen to use, to get us started? Maybe we can make a documented project / set of instructions so that anybody can use the queries / procedures you use / best practices / whatever, and contribute, or something. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 19:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll think about it over Thanksgiving break. -BDJP (t 21:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Good morning
Firstly; if you've changed a person's name, e.g. Wolffilms -> Wolf, you've run the risk of applying to them a nickname they don't like. In that recent exchange, they edited their own name, and surely that implies that they weren't comfortable with that nickname (Wolf) being used in that way. I think it was better left alone after they corrected it.

Secondly, I don't think Wolffilms was wrong in his correction of the discussion resolution. To clarify, your original resolution was fine, but only assuming Wolffilms was to go along with the idea that you would fully speak for him by creating that proposal, and then closing that proposal. Because in fact, it was you who proposed the split of Old, quoting Wolffilms in support, and it was you who closed the topic. If you're going to speak for someone in that way, you really have to submit to their understanding of the situation. It would have been simpler from the start to just attach your own name to those things, and if not that, to just accept their correction.

Those two things would have immediately prevented that edit war, because you never would have needed to fire the first revert. The topic would have been closed, nothing would have happened, and everyone would have had a good day.

Thirdly, these edit wars, they're really downers for editors to have to read through, and I can tell you don't actually like being in them yourself. So talk page please. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 16:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The topic was already closed with a note that they shouldn't be modified, so he technically shouldn't have done anything. Also, the only reasons as to why Wolf is involved with every single edit I make is for the fact that deep down I can tell he hates me at a personal level. I'm the one doing my best to keep cool, but then Wolf comes in steaming like a bull shouting at me to explain everything, every little tibit (I think he'll yell at me even if I correct grammar "without an explanation"). -BDJP (t 16:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right about that rule, sure. What I was describing was plausible ways you could bend that rule in order to keep the peace, by giving that editor the benefit of the doubt.  Do you remember last week or so, when you edited my page, which is against the rules, and you were warned for it, but I just said it was alright, forget about it?  Sometimes on talk pages and userspace it's ok to let minor things slide, or especially to treat things as minor when the alternative is going to war over it.
 * I am sure Wolffilms doesn't hate you, in any way. I am sure you guys would benefit from talking it out somewhere, with the aim of calling a truce, making peace, assuring one another that you have the best of intentions in mind, and going forward pledging to actually talk things out more.  Remember, assume good faith!  – Sealbudsman talk/contr 17:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * For BDJP I would not yell at you for making an edit to correct grammar as this is self-explanatoryhowever the only reason I "come in steaming like a bull shouting at you to explain everything" is because those types of edits that I do ask you to explain are not self-explanatory and can easily result in edit-wars.
 * For Sealbudsman Thank you for taking your time and going out of your way to explain all this and you are absolutely correct about everything that you have said.
 * BDJP Also I would love to talk it out somewhere, call a truce, make peace, assuring best intentions and pledging to talk things out more and no, I do not hate you on a personal level whatsoever or be any means. Wolffillms (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want, you can talk about it with me on reddit or twitter. Links are in my user profile, not the user wiki. -BDJP (t 00:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban
Do not revert any of Wolffilms' edits, on any page, for any reason. This disruptive edit warring has gone on for far too long, and you've both received several warnings about it. -- Orthotopetalk 19:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)