"Derk" wrote

I had assumed good faith up to the point at

which they decided to start with personal attacks.

I think you might unblock this one.

Charles

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.