User talk:Lightningstrikers

Maybe instead of falsely claiming that I've mentioned the CDC recently, you could actually respond to questions I've asked on the talk page. Remember also I think we need dispute resolution. Thanks. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

See the CDC discussion today at here

I don't know what questions you are talking about, but I think I have answered all your questions until the past 10 minutes or so. You on the other hand, have not answered mine when I have tried to figure out what you really want -- after bringing up professions -- but not working on it and diverting to content you want to delete.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Rubbish. Look on the talk page. I've engaged with you and proof is on the talk page. I even suggested included a separate section in the article. I've not mentioned the CDc for a long while, yet you lied saying I have. By the way did you place any warnings on the other editors talk page. Let's try and get a resolution here that is all I'm interested in. In future please keep off this page and comment on the article page. Thank you. Lightningstrikers (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's calm down. I don't want to give you another warning tonight. I can post warnings here. You do not have the right to be disruptive and then say warnings cannot be posted... all of which are in your talk page history. They do not do away just because you delete them here.

Seriously, take a deep breath. Please think of what you want to accomplish and how you can do that in a constructive way.

I need another break, anyway, and don't plan on posting again re: the article or your issues until tomorrow.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I am looking at our dispute reslotion options. Which noticeboard would be best to use please or which form of dispute resolution? Lightningstrikers (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Occupational stress, you may be blocked from editing. –CaroleHenson (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User_talk:CaroleHenson#January_2020. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ——SN54129 02:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Have you warned CaroleHenson too? Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure when she calls people liars I will certainly do so. (And no: suggesting that you are, by your actions, gaining a reputation for lying is not...) ——SN54129 02:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

What is the difference saying you are a liar and you lie? Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I've said i'm sorry to CaroleHenson. It was unacceptable calling her a liar. Thanks for the warning. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

One's a comment on an editor's actions, the other is a coment on them personally. The first is OK (if it's true), the second not. Anyway, I saw what you did, fair play to you. Struck the warning, clearly unnecesary! Cheers. ——SN54129 02:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightningstrikers (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Lightningstrickers and Serial Number 54129. When you struck out the warning about personal attacks, Serial Number 54129, did you intend to remove the Level 3 warning regarding disruptive editing?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)