User talk:Kuguar03
Big thumbs up on your recent edits to Prostitution; I'm glad I'm not the only one working on improving it ;-) MsBatfish (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
1994 San Marino GP
Not sure why you added hidden comments attempting to stop editors from changing the classifications when your version was not only wrong, but contrary to the source plainly given below. The source says "accident" (fatal isn't entirely necessary) for Senna and nothing at all for Ratzenberger. It's a poor source anyway, given the legendary inaccuracies of F1.com; however other decent sources also show "accident" for Senna. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since "my version" is the one that fits what you're describing, I'm not sure what your point is. And editors do keep changing the classifications, so the comments are necessary. I suggest you look at the edit history and what my edits actually were before making bizarre accusations. Kuguar03 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Look at the edit history? OK, what's this? [1] That's you changing it to "collision" and claiming "this the official classification", which as we can see, it isn't. Did you or did you not change the classification to an incorrect one and claim it was correct, and then add a note for other editors to leave it like that, i.e. wrong? If you don't like messages like the one above, then don't use misleading edit summaries and then claim that your edits are fine. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Again, look at the edit history. What you're saying isn't accurate. "My version" is the same as "your version". I'm opposed to using such term, instead preferring to work with editors towards a common goal, but if you insist on viewing it in such terms, so be it. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've restored the version that's consistent with the ref, which you'll notice is the same as my previous edit. If you insist on continuous vandalism of this page then there's not much point in furhter discussion. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Look at the edit history? OK, what's this? [1] That's you changing it to "collision" and claiming "this the official classification", which as we can see, it isn't. Did you or did you not change the classification to an incorrect one and claim it was correct, and then add a note for other editors to leave it like that, i.e. wrong? If you don't like messages like the one above, then don't use misleading edit summaries and then claim that your edits are fine. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
If I were you, I would assume good faith and immediately stop accusing other editors of vandalism, unless you want to report it. Your note refers to "accident" as the classification, which is quite clearly rubbish. Senna's classification is "retired" or "DNF". The column in question related to reasons for retirement or non-qualification. This column does not have to slavishly follow the reference, particularly where the reference does not mention reasons for non-qualification, and this is the standard across all F1 race report articles. You appear to be removing accurate information for no good reason. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Right, and when I tried to do that, you said it had to follow the classifications, and now that it does, it's still wrong somehow. Where does the assumption of good faith figure in here exactly? I can't be bothered to fight you on this; when I do edit wikipedia (not much these days) my only concern is the advancement of its mission; people like you with vague personal agendas are the main reason I stay away. Have fun! Kuguar03 (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- It does follow the classification in the source. The thing is that you're removing perfectly valid information regarding the reasons for non-qualification. The source doesn't cover reasons for non-qualification, but that is no reason to remove them. Do you want another source to be added that covers them? Otherwise I really can't see what the problem is, given that you seem happy to pretend that you never did this [2]. Again, keep your accusations of personal agendas etc to yourself, unless you care to back them up in the relevant places. Furthermore, your delusional tirades are most certainly not welcome on my talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I made a mistake and I fixed it. That's how wikipedia works. Are you willing to admit your mistakes? Kuguar03 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to tell me what my mistake is, maybe we can go from there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you have such a short memory span you've already forgotten the entire discussion we just had, and are incapable of scrolling up, there is no hope for you. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is the problem, you see - throughout the whole discussion here and elsewhere, you never accused me of anything specific, just stuff about vandalism and trying to destroy Wikipedia. Either get specific, or drop it. I've removed your personal attack on the GP talk page, because the alternative was me reporting you for it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- When you're ready to be rational, let me know. It's fair to let others know what you're up to; classifying that as a personal attack is clearly ridiculous. If you honestly believed that it was a personal attack, you'd have reported it. But you know you'll lose, especially given your long history of disruptive editing. As I've indicated, you win, which was your goal, right? Why can't you just be happy with that? Kuguar03 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Go ahead and restore your comments then, and I'll report you if that's what you want. I was giving you the benefit of the (admittedly rather small) doubt - I thought I was being rather kind. If you do decide to have a go, better be ready with all your proof of my "long history of disruptive editing", all my vandalism edits and my extensive block record etc. If you look at Wikipedia in terms of "win" and "lose", then my friendly advice to you is to give up. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- When you're ready to be rational, let me know. It's fair to let others know what you're up to; classifying that as a personal attack is clearly ridiculous. If you honestly believed that it was a personal attack, you'd have reported it. But you know you'll lose, especially given your long history of disruptive editing. As I've indicated, you win, which was your goal, right? Why can't you just be happy with that? Kuguar03 (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is the problem, you see - throughout the whole discussion here and elsewhere, you never accused me of anything specific, just stuff about vandalism and trying to destroy Wikipedia. Either get specific, or drop it. I've removed your personal attack on the GP talk page, because the alternative was me reporting you for it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you have such a short memory span you've already forgotten the entire discussion we just had, and are incapable of scrolling up, there is no hope for you. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to tell me what my mistake is, maybe we can go from there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- I made a mistake and I fixed it. That's how wikipedia works. Are you willing to admit your mistakes? Kuguar03 (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- It does follow the classification in the source. The thing is that you're removing perfectly valid information regarding the reasons for non-qualification. The source doesn't cover reasons for non-qualification, but that is no reason to remove them. Do you want another source to be added that covers them? Otherwise I really can't see what the problem is, given that you seem happy to pretend that you never did this [2]. Again, keep your accusations of personal agendas etc to yourself, unless you care to back them up in the relevant places. Furthermore, your delusional tirades are most certainly not welcome on my talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
If you were following the discussion, you'd see that I'm the one who's opposed to viewing wikipedia in those terms. I view concepts such as winning or losing, or my version or your version as ultimately harmful. You don't share that view, which is what led to this conflict. And it's over, since you "won". Congrats. Kuguar03 (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)