Tracescoops

Hatting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Welcome! Hello, Tracescoops, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Introduction and Getting started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page and How to develop articles How to create your first article Simplified Manual of Style You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC) "Stealing the show" That was meant to be in just alphabetical order and give them all equal billing, mainly to avert the "Beyonce/the Uptown Funk guys stole the show" angle. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC) You didn't tell me what "that" you're referring to, but I eventually figured it out. Anyway, the fact is that they didn't have equal billing. There was a headliner and two supporting acts, regardless of the impact of their performances. Your edit, and especially your edit summary, actually did the opposite of averting the "stole the show" angle.[1] However, I realize that your intentions were good. On a personal note, I totally agree with your opinion about them stealing the show. But of course that's irrelevant when we're wearing our editor hats. Tracescoops (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC) FYI Re: this edit. The original comment has been both removed and rev/del'd out of the page history. I was letting you know in case you wanted to consider redacting your quote of the offending comment. Cheers - theWOLFchild 21:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks, Wolf. Glad to hear it. Feel free to change my quote of it as you see fit. Tracescoops (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Done. It is of course your comment, so feel free to revert if you change your mind, but I think this is the right thing to do. Cheers - theWOLFchild 23:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC) I agree. Thanks. Tracescoops (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC) That disturbing comment stayed on a few noticeboards for quite some time after I asked for its suppression. I emailed the oversight team and and they promptly took care of it. It looks like that's the best way to remove violations like that. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the update. Tracescoops (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Quick note WP:SPI is actually the only appropriate venue in Wikipedia to bring concerns about SOCKing. Your accusations on the Talk page of Peyton Manning (which I copied into the SPI, for example,) were inappropriate personal attacks made in the midst of a content dispute. On article talk pages, please concentrate on content, not contributors. See WP:TPG for guidance on how to behave on Talk pages generally; see WP:SOCK for how to deal with socking concerns. In general, personal attacks are the lowest form of argument and they don't persuade the community. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC) The issue is not about your filing the report. It's about you directly accusing me in another forum of using a fake account prior to reporting it to the sockpuppet noticeboard, where you insisted that the case against me was "obvious". And now you still refuse to apologize after finding out that you were wrong. Instead, you've launched other baseless allegations, with nothing to back it up except rhetoric. You've already been indefinitely blocked once, so your condescending lectures, while amusing, have no credibility. Therefore, I'll ask that you not come back to this talk page again. Tracescoops (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)