Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk | contribs) Thanks. |
Moe Epsilon (talk | contribs) neat vanity :) |
||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
:Look, I'm not in "happy mode" right now, so I'll simplify it for time and my sanity's sake. No, I probably wasn't most polite, nor did I intend to be while being [[Ad hominem]] attacked. I feel my signature is not inappropriate and and doesn't need to be changed. I posted a reason on my talk page in plain sight so everyone could see the reason behind my signature. I refuse to change my name because of a referenece to a Motorhead song. If people have a problem with it, they can always talk to me on my talk page. If they don't want me to post the sig on thier talk, I'll refractor it. I'm pretty flexible upon certain topics, but the ad hominem attack really blew the flexibility out of proportion. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">[[User talk:Moe Epsilon|<font color="CD2626">The King of Kings</font>]]</span> 05:17 July 18 '06 |
:Look, I'm not in "happy mode" right now, so I'll simplify it for time and my sanity's sake. No, I probably wasn't most polite, nor did I intend to be while being [[Ad hominem]] attacked. I feel my signature is not inappropriate and and doesn't need to be changed. I posted a reason on my talk page in plain sight so everyone could see the reason behind my signature. I refuse to change my name because of a referenece to a Motorhead song. If people have a problem with it, they can always talk to me on my talk page. If they don't want me to post the sig on thier talk, I'll refractor it. I'm pretty flexible upon certain topics, but the ad hominem attack really blew the flexibility out of proportion. — <span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva">[[User talk:Moe Epsilon|<font color="CD2626">The King of Kings</font>]]</span> 05:17 July 18 '06 |
||
<div style="color:#009"> |
<div style="color:#009; font-style:italic"> |
||
::I appreciate the polite response. I have not asked you to change your signature—for several reasons, the most significant being that this phrase does not carry any significant meaning in my religion or culture. I do try to look at matters from multiple points of view, however, and can quite understand why others take offense. Another reason is you tend to make the right decision, and I am sure you will in this case (whatever that decision may be). I would like to suggest, however, that if you are going to keep as your signature a phrase that refers to the central religious figure of a major religion (among multiple meanings), you are going to have to learn to deal better with the complaints you may receive; you'll have to learn to remain polite and not lose your happy mode. I am not unsympathetic; I would be quite irritated if "Knowledge Seeker" turned out to be a reference to a prominent religious figure. Finally, I appreciate you indulging my vanity. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 06:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
::I appreciate the polite response. I have not asked you to change your signature—for several reasons, the most significant being that this phrase does not carry any significant meaning in my religion or culture. I do try to look at matters from multiple points of view, however, and can quite understand why others take offense. Another reason is you tend to make the right decision, and I am sure you will in this case (whatever that decision may be). I would like to suggest, however, that if you are going to keep as your signature a phrase that refers to the central religious figure of a major religion (among multiple meanings), you are going to have to learn to deal better with the complaints you may receive; you'll have to learn to remain polite and not lose your happy mode. I am not unsympathetic; I would be quite irritated if "Knowledge Seeker" turned out to be a reference to a prominent religious figure. Finally, I appreciate you indulging my vanity. — [[User:Knowledge Seeker|Knowledge Seeker]] [[User talk:Knowledge Seeker|দ]] 06:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
</div> |
</div> |
||
Revision as of 08:22, 18 July 2006
| Archives: |
|---|
| Archive 1 (11/22/2004–4/1/2005) |
| Archive 2 (4/2/2005–4/30/2005) |
| Archive 3 (4/29/2005–6/12/2005) |
| Archive 4 (6/12/2005–7/27/2005) |
| Archive 5 (7/29/2005–10/4/2005) |
| Archive 6 (10/11/2005–12/23/2005) |
| Archive 7 (12/24/2005–1/30/2006) |
| Archive 8 (1/26/2006–3/31/2006) |
| Archive 9 (3/30/2006–5/26/2006) |
| Archive 10 (5/23/2006–7/13/2006) |
Hi, and welcome. I like comments (and barnstars), so feel free to leave some.
Please when starting a new topic, and please use ~~~~ to sign your comments.
I may add section headers and attribution for comments, and I may adjust margins and alignment for clarity.
user talk page restore
Hi. A couple of days ago I started going though new pages for the first time to flag articles for deletion for things like db-talk. I found a bunch of them, which I thought was cool, since I'm relatively new around here (2 or 3 months) and I feel like I am still able to contribute even though I've gotten a bit burned out by creating so many articles in the main space in such a short time. So anyways, all of the pages that I marked that day were deleted. Because I wanted to keep track of the deletions to make sure I was doing things right I kept links to them on a subpage of mine and I noticed that one of them, which was a user page came back. So I was about to do a db-repost when I noticed the "View logs for this page" for the first time ever and it looks like this page is getting deleted over and over. I tried to look around to see what was going on and it looks like maybe there is a user that doesn't want the page deleted and is restoring it. I've notice it was restored each of the past 2 nights by the same person (admin I guess?). So am I supposed to list it on AFD or take some other action, or is it just a landmine that I should stay away from so I don't get hit by the shrapnel? --Brian G 03:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- An excellent question. The page in question wasn't restored by an administrator; rather, it was re-created with the same template by the user. I'm not certain what the proper action is here. I actually think that user talk pages should not be deleted when users leave Wikipedia. You might contact the original deleting administrator to let him know the page has been restored and ask why it was deleted in the first place. In general, you should nominated user pages on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, but in this case I'd probably check with the involved administrators for assistance. I don't feel strongly about it either way, which is why I haven't touched the page, but I don't know all the facts, either. Hope this helps! — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. Since I've now read more about CSD G8, I've learned that User talk pages are considered exempt, so I guess I shouldn't have speedied it. Also, it looks like there is a lot more history involved in this particular case than I need to know about. I think that I just stumbled into something that I should probably not get much further involved in, especially since I have no personal interest in this. I'm going to just leave a message for the admin whom I think is the one that wants to be contacted, as a courtesy to them, and leave it at that. --Brian G 12:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're quite welcome. You handled the situation very appropriately. I hope you will contact me in the future if you ever have other questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Stop being a WP:DICK
As I mentioned above, fair-use images are not to be used in user space. Please do not re-add the image back, or place any other fair-use images in user space. If you continue, you may be blocked. If you have questions or do not understand, please ask me rather than restoring the image. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I see you reverted my user page again. I guess that since you were wrong on the facts about the use of {{User EX-WP}} you decided that you would chase after me for another issue.
- You are right about fair use images. However, IMHO your selective enforcement of the rule shows you to be vindictive and petty. Hope you're getting what you want out of wikipedia. --South Philly 04:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can assure you I will take your grievances seriously whether you express them with hostility or politeness. I am unaware that I ever expressed an opinion on the use of {{User EX-WP}}, though I prefer not to use userboxes in general; if I was wrong about its use, I apologize. Yes, I reverted your page again, for reasons I explained on your talk page, and with which I believe you agree. I was not aware my enforcement was selective; if you know of an instance where I was aware of a fair-use violation but failed to object to the user or remove the image, I'd appreciate you sharing it with me. Thank you, yes, I quite enjoy my work on Wikipedia, both in being able to contribute to this body of knowledge, and also do help maintain the administrative side when I can. Wikipedia's policy is quite clear on fair-use images. I'm sorry that my removal of the image upset you so much. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Saw you were on. Just wanted to let you know that this is a brilliant contibution. Cheers -- Samir धर्म
- Why. thank you, Doctor! I found out about the nomenclature scheme a couple months ago, and was amazed. I toyed with the idea of writing an article for several weeks actually, but I was busy and wasn't sure if it was too technical for Wikipedia. Ultimately I decided it was just too fascinating and I needed to share it with others. My schedule has lightened a bit so I hope to be around Wikipedia some more these days. Thanks for the comment; I'm really glad you liked the article! — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Hydnjo's response to the blocking proposal
I thank one and all - Jarandal, Antandrus, Titoxd, Xaosflux, TenOfAllTrades, mboverload, PseudoSudo, Knowledge Seeker, Haukurth, Deathphoenix, Zzyzx11, Tyrenius, Zscout370, AnnH, Rick Block, Tyrenius (again), Zscout370 (again) and NoSeptember for your support.
To Jeffrey O. Gustafson who initiated this block request I ask why? We have had no interaction until now so how do you come to this requested action at WP:AN? Did you come across my account during your own research or are you acting as a proxy for another admin/user with whom I've caused to be angry with me? In reviewing your contributions I see no such "letter of the law" before now and so I feel singled out by you and I have no clue as to why - that to me is most disturbing. If you've come to this action on your own then should I be always wary of another admin challenging the legitimacy of my account?
For TenOfAllTrades who advised me not to worry and Rick who made me laugh I give special thanks, you've helped me to not take this so personally. And to Jeff, thanks for being courteous in informing me of your action and for letting me feel that your heart wasn't for blocking me.
Except for my one explanation above, I haven't edited for a few days now so as to allow y'all to comment about this based on my history of contribution rather than my reaction to it.
I wanted to say all of this before it all goes to archive heaven. I still have a lingering concern that this may arise again and don't want to go through WP life looking over my shoulder or worrying that I might piss-off some admin and cause another inquiry about the legitimacy of my account. If any of you who have been so gracious as to take the time to support me here have any suggestions to prevent such an action, please drop your thoughts on my talk or by email.
Finally, on a personal note to all, I never ever expected so much supportive response from all of you. I know that I've been moody at times and have spoken in ways that I have regretted the next day. I hoped otherwise but it seemed that those unfortunate responses might end up being my legacy as they were the foremost in my mind. And so far as this being a "role account", I think that I'll let the descriptions of AnnH and NoSeptember (both above) stand as the most intuitive descriptions of this account. My (and our) warmest regards to all of you for your understanding and outward support for the continuation of hydnjo's user account and future contributions. Again, my delighted and humble thanks :-) --hydnjo talk 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was quite pleased to express my support. You are a fine editor(s) and I am glad to have you on the project. I don't think you need to worry about this situation coming up in the future. Should someone express concern, he can be directed to this discussion; further, I fully expect an outpouring of support, as in this case. You should continue as before. I'd also like to express my support Jeffrey O. Gustafson's actions. I think he acted quite appropriately; it is admirable of him to bring up a potentially concerning issue, even if it's a difficult one. You shouldn't take it personally; he went to lengths to explain his concerns with the issue despite your great contributions. He didn't push the issue once the consensus was clear, nor did he get angry or defensive. In fact, it perhaps is a good thing he brought it up so that the matter could be settled once and for all, instead of always remaining a potential problem. Perhaps you should thank him for sharing his concerns and enabling the matter to be properly discussed. I look forward to running into you again. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Your comments on WP:AN
- Look, I'm not in "happy mode" right now, so I'll simplify it for time and my sanity's sake. No, I probably wasn't most polite, nor did I intend to be while being Ad hominem attacked. I feel my signature is not inappropriate and and doesn't need to be changed. I posted a reason on my talk page in plain sight so everyone could see the reason behind my signature. I refuse to change my name because of a referenece to a Motorhead song. If people have a problem with it, they can always talk to me on my talk page. If they don't want me to post the sig on thier talk, I'll refractor it. I'm pretty flexible upon certain topics, but the ad hominem attack really blew the flexibility out of proportion. — The King of Kings 05:17 July 18 '06
- I appreciate the polite response. I have not asked you to change your signature—for several reasons, the most significant being that this phrase does not carry any significant meaning in my religion or culture. I do try to look at matters from multiple points of view, however, and can quite understand why others take offense. Another reason is you tend to make the right decision, and I am sure you will in this case (whatever that decision may be). I would like to suggest, however, that if you are going to keep as your signature a phrase that refers to the central religious figure of a major religion (among multiple meanings), you are going to have to learn to deal better with the complaints you may receive; you'll have to learn to remain polite and not lose your happy mode. I am not unsympathetic; I would be quite irritated if "Knowledge Seeker" turned out to be a reference to a prominent religious figure. Finally, I appreciate you indulging my vanity. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, I was about to ask you how you would feel if the name Knowledge Seeker turned out to be a new/old religious meaning, but thought that was a stupid question to ask, but I got to say that was the response I would have expected. :) Understand I'm trying to control the anger problem, it's a hard thing to control really and the happy mode goes from time to time. But hey, I'm trying and its an improvement (?) from the past. And... your vanity was fun indulging in. :) — The King of Kings 06:32 July 18 '06
Thanks.
While the support of anyone is not particularly important as I feel I'm here to do a job and not win any popularity contests, it is still nice to see that someone saw that my intent re:Hydnjo was not harmful and that, although I was wrong about a block, I did nothing wrong in my specific actions. Your kind words here are greatly appreciated, and it reduced the wikistress that had been building. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)