User talk:HighInBC/Archive 14

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Muhammad

I realize that I made a mistake re Muhammad article. Sorry about that. --Be happy!! (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. You can make up for it by encouraging debate and accepting(and waiting for) consensus. I assume that you did not have any bad intentions. Peace. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure I'll try to participate more in the discussion on the talk page to compehsate for that. :) --Be happy!! (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility

I have not personally attacked anyone. I have not made fun of their edits. I have not insulted. My actions have been straight forward, clean, and precise. Don't make mountains out of molehills. It is, however, disrespectful for an admin to make a ruling without reviewing the facts of a case. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about civility. When several different editors tell you that you are being uncivil, it is best to believe them. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

I hope you won't be mad but I kinda need that stuff you deleted from my page soon :( --~Menasay~ (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I sent it via e-mail. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll be posting it on Myspace instead. lol.--~Menasay~ (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

UAA

Ok, who is Rory? Can you give me a link to their account? This is a gross overreaction. This is not an attack or threat against any person. This is akin to a name of IhateBob. If there is no last name, it is not the name of a user, where is the problem? KnightLago (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you take a look at the deleted contents of User:Ihaterory‎. I would block IhateBob or IhateJim or IhateAmy too.

I need to know why you think we should know who rory or bob are before preventing people from using Wikipedia to express hate about them? WP:USERNAME makes it very clear that usernames in the form of attack need to be blocked. Do you really think it is okay as long as the person being attacked is not part of Wikipedia?

You are of course not obligated to block such names, however I ask that you not remove them from the list as they are most certainly inappropriate and need admin attention. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with Until here; those are definitely in the category of names that want insta-blocking; I suspect even Rspeer would agree. SamBC(talk) 17:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe I am assuming too much good faith. Just User:Ihaterory‎ alone, doesn't seem like an attack to me. As for their one contribution, the page was made at the moment I was removing the name from UAA. So nothing for me to see but a bland username with nothing explicit or overtly offensive. KnightLago (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am unsure how you can see "Ihate<insertnamehere>" as bland, or not an attack. Wikipedia is not a forum for expressing hate. Considering how many users we have, we are likely to have many rory's about, and the same goes for any name. I understand that you did not see the user's contribution, but the name enough is enough for a block.

I am sorry if my tone was overly critical, but I do hate to see such usernames fall through the cracks and end up causing a good editor harm. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Thank you for your well-constructed message on my talk page. Don't talk down to be, I'm already aware of the policy. GreenJoe 18:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My message was plenty polite and not talking down to you. Since you are already aware of the civility policy then you will be expected to follow it, failure to do so may result in measures being taken to prevent you from being uncivil. It is not an optional policy. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice!

Nice username ;) --Creamy!^Talk 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could say the same. So many possible meanings... _(1 == 2)^Until 17:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:

If people wish to rush into things, that is their prerogative. Doesn't mean I've changed my mind on the matter. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who changed their mind. Regardless I retracted my comment once I realized you had indeed stated you would reverse the block, sorry for my only partial understanding of the situation. While I disagree with the unblock, you did respond well to the objection to it. Peace. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa

I've added a few sections. I'm a big expert on this because I have a lot of experience with making mistakes. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I figured between the two of us we could write a book. Good contributions, you have thought of angles that did not occur to me. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

yup

And thank you for letting me know! Ross Uber - Talk - Contributions - 03:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.