Well, I'm not the only one who understood, the person who left the original comment in his talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:RickK&oldid=792195…] said "I don't know if you realised, but at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion>, you cut User:Vague Rant <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vague_Rant>'s comment in half and declared that the first half of his comment was by an anon and was therefore not counted". Daniel P.B.Smith wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Please. If you're trying to make this out as something nasty on the part of Rick, you're barking up the wrong tree. It was a funny error, which is why the section on Rick's talk page was entitled "Teehee". I suggest you actually read the edit before suggesting that it has malicious intent and misrepresenting my post.

Please. If you're trying to make this out as something nasty on the part of Rick, you're barking up the wrong tree. It was a funny error, which is why the section on Rick's talk page was entitled "Teehee". I suggest you actually read the edit before suggesting that it has malicious intent and misrepresenting my post. -- ambi On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:30:51 +0000, R E Broadley &lt;20041111(a)stardate.freeserve.co.uk&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Go find something worthwhile to do. You are a pest. Like a gnat or a yappy little dog. RickK R E Broadley &lt;20041111(a)stardate.freeserve.co.uk&gt; wrote: Rebecca, I apologise for misrepresenting your post by not including the topic title. It was not my intention to misrepresent it, and if this was an honest mistake by RickK, than I apologise to RickK also. It might not be reckless editing, but I still consider it to be editing without due care and attention, of which I've spotted a lot of these from him recently. If it were driving, he'd have lost his license by now. Ed

So what is your opinion of a newbie running to the mailing list and tattling for every thing I do, even when I explain to him what my reasons were and he doesn't come back with another discussion, but instead institues an RfC on me after supposedly having been around for maybe three or four days? Sounds like somebody who knows his way around Wikipedia a little too well for a newbie. RickK Jens Ropers &lt;ropers(a)ropersonline.com&gt; wrote: Trolls seek to fire up people on some ruse, to get them to overreact and make complete asses of themselves in public. I don't know if Ed is a troll (and I'm not saying he is; it seems progressively unlikely to me that he is). Lemme however assume for a sec that RIck is right and that Ed is a troll: What Rick is doing is STILL remarkably unwise, because he's getting EXACTLY where a troll would want him to be. Besides, insulting (ie. wronging) a perceived or actual bad guy doesn't improve anything or anybody. Now assuming that Ed is not a troll: What Rick is doing is de-test-a-ble, because Rick is Assuming Bad Faith. No matter how strongly Rick may believe in his assessment of Ed: Strength of conviction is no substitute for sensible reasoning and due process. As a Wikipedian (even as a pretty dormant one), I expressly disapprove of this. -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com On 28 Nov 2004, at 21:41, Rick wrote: >Go find something worthwhile to do. You are a pest. Like a gnat or a >yappy little dog. > >RickK > >R E Broadley &lt;20041111(a)stardate.freeserve.co.uk&gt; wrote: >Rebecca, > >I apologise for misrepresenting your post by not including the topic >title. It was not my intention to misrepresent it, and if this was an >honest mistake by RickK, than I apologise to RickK also. It might not >be >reckless editing, but I still consider it to be editing without due >care >and attention, of which I've spotted a lot of these from him recently. >If it were driving, he'd have lost his license by now. > >Ed > >