--Stiarts erid (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012[edit]

Thank you for your well intentioned contribution to the Suzi Quatro article. I have reverted your edit because:

Alt text is for the benefit of blind readers and so may contain information that is, to a sighted person, "some undeeded [sic] and petty detail". Please see Wikipedia:ALT.
Before adding glam rock as a genre, please join the existing discussion at Talk:Suzi_Quatro#Deleted "glam rock" because Suzi Quatro says that this is not her genre.

Peter Loader (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suzi Quatro[edit]

Thanks for your useful edits to Suzi Quatro. I felt that they were important enough for me to add them to the Music section — Peter Loader (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Fog (2005 film)[edit]

When editing articles, please ensure that you adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines, in this case WP:FILMPLOT. Plot summaries in film articles should be between 400-700 words long and should only include details that are important to the story. Details such as "When the radio stops so do the women and they put their tops back on and go inside the boat" is not a plot point and would be considered excessive detail. When a plot summary is too long, it is also important to try to condense the wording rather than making it even longer. For example, instead of detailing how the three people on the boat are killed, it is simpler to simply say they were "horrifically killed". Additionally, when adding names to cast lists for films, please remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of details and names that are added to a castlist must meet certain criteria. Minor roles by actors that are not notable enough to even have a Wikipedia article of their own would normally not be , although "Korie Ferguson" is not actually listed in the film's credits anyway. Please refer to WP:MOSFILM for a fuller explanation of guidelines. Thank you. 88.104.30.10 (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also your likes and dislikes is not relevant to revert the article. If you keep doing this based from your own personal opinion, you might be seen as a vandal and will be reported. This is a warning.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look I am not trying to cause trouble I am willing to settle it reasonably. I all I ant to do is put in that when on the boat they all go inside then the men come out and the women stay inside. It is not unreasonable or picky as it is part of the plot otherwise it sounds they are always inside and killed there or are inside then all go outside which is also incorrect. Wikipedia is meant to be a site where you can freely edit not for edits to be constantly undone to what someone else things is better.

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do thvis. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or [[File:Signature icon.png|15px|link=Wikipedia:How to sign your posts]y]) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

28 July 2013[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at The Fog (2005 film), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. 88.104.21.82 (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2013 WP:Hound, WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL theres your warning too for the abusive comments you made to me

"Various people have tried to reason with you and you have done

nothing but show yourself to be childish and irresponsible." I think that is a personal attack actually which is why I retorted, but as I said I am not doing anything more with this site.

Nobody has made abusive comments to you, you have simply been warned about your behaviour. And none of the Wikipedia policies you have quoted above apply, and this is just further proof that you need to learn and understand Wikipedia's policies if you wish to continue to edit. 88.104.29.253 (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, "Main Attraction[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, "Main Attraction. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Main Attraction (album). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Main Attraction (album) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a couple of tips for new articles about Suzi Quatro singles:

If you name the article in line with the name given to it in the Suzi Quatro Template: Template:Suzi Quatro then all of the Suzi Quatro articles which contain this template (i.e. most of them) will automatically link to the new article, so it will not be an orphan. For example Main Attraction (Suzi Quatro song).
If you add the Suzi Quatro Template at the end of the article, i.e. just write Suzi Quatro inside a set of double curly brackets (see Can the Can for an example), then your new article will automatically link all of the existing Suzi Quatro articles. So it will not be a dead end.

Keep up the good work — Peter Loader (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of "I Go Wild"[edit]

The article "I Go Wild" has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

completely non-notable by all accounts. not a logical redirect

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:The Fog (2005 film), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Let the other editors pull their own comments. There's plenty of valid discussion in that thread that may be helpful for other future editors. Millahnna (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. Once again, please let the other editors remove their own comments. Millahnna (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not disruptive edits actually, the argument is over and has no place there anymore but you clearly seem to be trying to get involved with something that's nothing to do with you god knows why. Apart from that the argument doesn't even make sense now as parts of it are missing so does not flow, but I imagine you won't see that and will think it should stay disjointed annd nonsensical clogging up a talk page.

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page edits, as you did at Talk:The Fog (2005 film), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Millahnna (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't even bring yourself to dscuss this to reach a mutal agreement can you, you have to leave warnings made on a stupid corrupt site to make yourself look all big and important! Can you not see the argument in question has NOTHING to do with you and the people involved have not objected to it being deleted only you, I thiink you actually want to start an argument so you can look all great and powerful don't you! I am willing to settle it in a civilised manor but clearly you aren't!! The argument is DISJOINTED so does NOT make sense if pieces are MISSING can you not realise that!?!? Either it all stays so it makes sense or it all goes it is as simple as that go ahead block me from editing it won't make any difference but maybe one day you will actually be able to talk about it in a civillised manor.

I'm not involved in the content dispute on that page, though I do have the page on my watchlist. I'm not starts a nadmin. But I do vandal and recent changes patrols a lot when I have little free time for bigger edits. I missed the beginning of the conversation and didn't know it wagoing on until I stumbled onto it doing recent changes. I caught up enough to figure out that there was no agreement on the part of the other editors to remove their comments, despite your claims in edit summaries. I also noticed that there was a fair amount of legit conversation on improving the article (and why certain approaches will not be appropriate) in that conversation once your problems posts were removed (in fact you could have edited some of your posts and kept the conversation without the attitude but you opted for complete removal so whatever). That is where my involvement ends. I do not have the time to get involved in any of the heavier projects in my watchlist right now. So I'll be staying away from whatever content dispute started the whole mess. If you really feel that folks should remove their comments, you should ask them directly (I'd recommend the talk page of the film article in question). I'd still say editing out whatever civility problems are left but leaving the valid conversation would be best. But that's between you guys. Millahnna (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!! A summary supposedly serve as a overview, NOT to serve as a substitute to the original Not to mention what Spooner called Mandi and Jennifer was irrelevant!!!!!!!!!!!!--NeoBatfreak ([[User

talk:NeoBatfreak|talk]]) 08:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly calm down! Maybe you will actually listen to what I want put in there and realise you can't always have your own way all the time. It is only polite to listen to other peoples ideas even if you don't agree with them. Oh and next time you comment on my page calm down first and then get a English dictionary and learn to spell proper English before making these quite embaressing spelling mistakes, how can you manage to spell okay in articles but not on comments to other people? Next time you make a comment like that on my talk page it will be deleted and will be reporting you for completely unreasonable behaviour and Not listening to what I have to say!!!!

No one is bullying you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was because no one agrees your edits and you've been acting childish. For example, you want the name "Brandi" on Mandi and Jennifer. It's not even relevant!!!!!!!!!!! If you call us bullies one more time, you will be reported again!!!! Name calling is also not tolerated as well!!!!!!!!!! You've obviously had not read any rules on Wikipedia, instead just do whatever you feel like. What you've been doing is inconsiderate of other people's, which is why we repeatedly revert your changes. When someone reverting my edits, though is disappointing but I have to respect other people. If you can't handle rejection, then you have no business of being around here, because acceptance and rejection are common here. A behavior like yours will get you blocked if you don't start to be considerate of other people, and accepts rejection responsibly!!!!!!!--NeoBatfreak (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I am quite prepared to let that go actually, and I don't mind things being reverted if it has been agreed that is the best thing by ALL editors! It is bullying NOT listening to what I have to say and insisting on having YOUR way! Yes obviously I'm childish because saying speak to me about it so we can reach a mutal decision and saying I will discuss it with you so we are both happy then ignoring it completely is obviously the adult thing to do. My god how silly I've been not to realise that! Why don't you grow up and talk to me on here to reach a mutal decision. You have no bussiness around here if you can't spell correctly either if you want to be like that. Actually as you keep saying you'll report me to the administrators maybe I'll do that to you for bullying and see what they think to you taking no notice of my suggestions and keep insisting on having your way!!!! Also deal with name calling if you hadn't acted so unresonablythen maybe I wouldn't have called names, but as I did here is what you do get over it. Also why the hell did you let my version stick for a while then when someone stirs it all up again you go and attack again????

Simple, I have had enough of you calling me a bully or NAZI. In fact, you just rather act according to you own terms without considering others. Im called neo bat freak and I can't spell and y should I waste my time on you, when all I received all these months are abuse?!!!!!!!--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm a massive Twat that thinks I'm greattl lol I have no life either ha Why can't you keep the discussion in one place?? Also do you not know about saying things in the heat of the moment MOVE ON! Also if you don't want to waste time on me then stop commenting on my talk page stop mentioning me in posts and leave me alone! Well if you had bothered to listen to discuss it rationally then I wouldn't have had to argue with you would I. Learn to spell proper English too before making embaressing illiterate responses.

Now you calling me illiterate. You are not that different, since you spelled the word "embarrassing" wrong. This is another reason why I rather ignore you, because of your behavior.

Fine maybe my spelling is iffy at times, but at least grammatical i'm generally alright unlike some of your comments, also I notice in your archives someone has already mentioned about your spelling and grammar. If you are ignoring me then why are you still talking to me?

Great, so you are invading my privacy.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's open to the public so anyone can see and you think that's invading privacy, god help us!

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

13 September 2013[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Fog (2005 film), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. As you have already been told on several occasions, you are to gain a consensus before making any changes to the article. Other editors have already discussed the matter in question with you and you have continued to ignore them and carried on with your blatantly disruptive edits and antisocial behaviour . If this behaviour continues, your account will be reported and blocked. Kookoo Star (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you stay out of things that aren't to do with you. And since when do I have to get permission to say something this is a free country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs)

This isn't a country at all. This is Wikipedia. You have no right to free speech here. Please try to stay civil going forward in discussions. You're not likely to get away with your current behavior for much longer. --Onorem (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at The Fog (2005 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warringu. Thank you. Kookoo Star (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at George of the Jungle 2, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. You need to read MOS:FILM and WP:FILMPLOT for starters. Also we do not use contractions and prefer a more encyclopedic tone in writing. Millahnna (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

george of the jungle 2 edits[edit]

Okay well firstly after trying to talk to you about the page and how I wanted to change things to it you simply ignored me. Also my edits were not hard to read and if people can not read that then they should go and get some English lessons to start. Plus it seems you aren't allowed to do anything on here without it being against some made up rule or what someone thinks is better so what the hells the point in trying !?!?!

This is your last warning. The next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at George of the Jungle 2, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. These rules aren't made up. I and several others have directed you to various guidelines and policies and you've made it clear you have no interest in conversing rationally about it on other pages. The grammar is not "good enough". The details are unneeded because of what the plot section for films is actually for (i.e. Plot is not there to replace seeing the film, it's there to provide information for our coverage of the film at large in other sections). Millahnna (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at George of the Jungle 2, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Millahnna (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at George of the Jungle 2 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Betty Logan (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your resumption of edit-warring at George of the Jungle 2, a case has been started to examine your activies at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Stiarts_erid_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_.29. If you wish to make a statement please reply there. Betty Logan (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look betty Logan you are just a sour old bag that thinks anything you don't agree with is poorly written or irrelevant. I completely reworded what I put so it made sense also the spelling was checked on my phone but you can't see beyond the end of your nose can you?!?! The current article you think is good starts a sentence with anyway! for crying out loud! You are clearly brain dead as well as ignorant. You think its good English? Just FUCK OFF I've had enough of you, you pathetic stupid sour old bitch! Go and rot in hell it's low life like you that have put the country in such a state. Thanks for nothing! User

= ANEW[edit]

You were reported a few days ago at WP:AN3 (see here), but I don't believe anyone notified you. Please respond to the report, or you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

resignation[edit]

After months of contributing to this site I have finally had enough of its petty, pathetic, idiotic rules and guidelines! Firstly on the article the fog you try adding just a few things and some complete wanker goes and starts undoing it all, just because it's not what they think is right. Then you get told about a load of rules and guidelines for pitty sake. Why are there rules and guidelines on a free editing site? But worst of all why do some of the stupid editors think they are in government!?!? They think they are all great and powerful but really they're weak and pathetic!

After all that I had been defeated by a few idiots, so I left it if they want to be that stupid let them. I had been editing George of the jungle 2 for some time but all my work had been undone, I can only think the editor went through my contributions to see what I had been doing. I tried coming to a solution with them but again it was ignored. So because they were determined to have their way I had to let them. This is the sort of thing that goes on a lot and I have had enough. I won't try and contribute as it either goes against what someone thinks is right or goes against some poxy rule! Well what a shit site! Also saying my English is poor, well George of the jungle 2 starts a sentence with anyway for crying out loud!!! I'm done bye thanks for nothing .

October 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at George of the Jungle 2. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{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. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks, harassment, and WP:BATTLEGROUND editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

Hello. You may not evade your block by sockpuppeteering. You can have the best case in the history of the universe for why your text is correct, but no one will listen to your case if you are evading your block. Please see Wikipedia:Standard offer for a way that you can continue to edit on the site; I will be gracious and waive the 6 month waiting period if you can fulfill the other requirements.

In order to do so, you will need to do the following:

Show that you understand why you were blocked, and why it's not acceptable to edit war, even if you're sure you're correct.
Stop gravely insulting other users.
Do so in a manner which explains your own faults, not blaming others. See WP:NOTTHEM.

There, you can stop even thinking about "holding your breath"[1]; I have heard your complaint. Now, the ball is in your court; can you perform even this simple act of attrition? If you cannot, you will never get your version of the article (this isn't a threat, it's an observation from someone who's been doing this a long time). Now I'm not holding my breath. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stiarts erid (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes well it was wrong to sock puppet I know but the editor Betty Logan wouldn't listen or so it seemed no matter how hard I tried. I am sorry for insulting people so harshly but again seemed no one was listening to what I wanted to say. I promise if unblocked I won't make these mistakes again and try and talk it through with editors. Although if unblocked would you help me persuade Betty Logan to consider my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 06:50, 26 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm counting 6 last/only warnings in the last 3 months. You haven't been able to improve your behaviour despite plenty of last chances and I don't think unblocking you would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Please don't create any more sockpuppet accounts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've turned your request into an unblock request, because I want some other administrators who have more experience to look at it. I think you've struck the right tone, but I'm worried about the fact it seems like you're only accepting responsibility without showing you understand why you got blocked. Could an administrator who is familiar with unblocks and the likelihood of recidivism take a look at this? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be fine, thank you for all your help.

Comment His disregard of WP:EDITWAR and WP:FILMPLOT clearly extends to other articles as his talk page attests (for the record I only intervened at George of the Jungle 2 following a 3O request by another editor after he waged a long campaign to install superfluous grammatically poor content in the article). I see no indication that he will not resume the disruptive activities that brought us to this stage. His assertion that he will continue trying to "convince" me suggests he will continue edit-warring or harrassing editors that disagree with him. Betty Logan (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC) Depends if you believe in second chances, I made mistakes for which I'm very sorry. But so did you dismissing my later edits without even giving them a chance and probably without even reading them I found very rude. But I am sorry for insulting you. I think the best way to move foward is accept we both made mistakes, shake hands and move on. But if you don't think we can be adult enough for that by all means continue to fight and look childish. PS that's not an insult either.[reply]