On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 14:05 -0400, Derk wrote:
Anyway. When the party in question decided to insult
me,
Sorry. I see it was Cyber rather than Crypto. My apologies. I do more
of one than the other.
they also
removed a warning from their talk page about some old edit.
I'm puzzled here.
1. it was a notably old edit, past history.
1b Surely an assumption (especially by someone not looking
at the list of contributions) about a talk page for an
IP address would usually be that this is not reliably
related to any particular user?
So until I register, pop up here and actually _claim_ it
is it in any way safe to assume that it relates to me?
2. but if it is mine, why shouldn't I delete old stuff from a talk
page? It isn't a charge sheet, nor of lasting interest, by its general
appearance?
2b If it is indeed my (singular) talk page, then again,
who else would.
3. And I didn't actually see it as a _warning_.
I saw it as advice on how to do something, absorbed.
3b. There is an attitude here, that is worth some self-examination
Vandalism is bad, but not everything one sees,
even if one wrote a premier division anti-vandalism tool
(as well as another weapons-system)
is vandalism.
So not all responses to something done wrong,
or unnecessarily, or in the wrong place,
are "warnings".
Creating
an article to put a POV statement about where a page should be,
Not so though.
removing a prior warning,
This is worth
deciding on, and actually noting.
If a talk page says "This is your talk page, well, not yours, ours,
don't remove anything anyone puts on it" then I suppose a point would be
expected to be got, by a reasonable man.
and insulting me after being warned is
enough for me to block. I had assumed good faith up to the point at
which they decided to start with personal attacks.
Ah, assumptions.
I had assumed .... well, never mind.
--
Adrian Midgley <amidgley2(a)defoam.net>