User talk:Unit56: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→One edit?: reply |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:::Suspicion of what? The comment stands on its own; shouldn't matter who wrote it. At any rate, for the record, I've never even heard of you and I've been here on and off since mid-2004. So, there's no boogeyman sock. The only thing I take offense at is you making a production on ANI about who left a comment instead of simply acknowledging the point. Well that, and you telling me to 'calm down' when I rather calmly objected to you publicly attacking me for some wholly imaginary insult to your character. My intent was not to quibble with or to criticize you personally, but to uphold an important principle of wikipedia, which you were breaking in a small but symbolically important way. I'll just close by noting that if you has simply kept your response to the content rather than the contributor, then yet another tiny but unpleasant wikipedia drama would have been avoided. [[User:Unit56|Unit56]] ([[User talk:Unit56#top|talk]]) 06:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
:::Suspicion of what? The comment stands on its own; shouldn't matter who wrote it. At any rate, for the record, I've never even heard of you and I've been here on and off since mid-2004. So, there's no boogeyman sock. The only thing I take offense at is you making a production on ANI about who left a comment instead of simply acknowledging the point. Well that, and you telling me to 'calm down' when I rather calmly objected to you publicly attacking me for some wholly imaginary insult to your character. My intent was not to quibble with or to criticize you personally, but to uphold an important principle of wikipedia, which you were breaking in a small but symbolically important way. I'll just close by noting that if you has simply kept your response to the content rather than the contributor, then yet another tiny but unpleasant wikipedia drama would have been avoided. [[User:Unit56|Unit56]] ([[User talk:Unit56#top|talk]]) 06:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::And I'm supposed to take your word for 2004, right? --[[User:Bobak|Bobak]] ([[User talk:Bobak|talk]]) 18:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:46, 30 March 2008
One edit?
If you were going to take the time to post an opinion, why not have an established IP? I got curious because I noticed the fact that a user with no talk page posted, I wouldn't have been offended. --Bobak (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand your complaint. I also don't understand why you examined my edit history. Surely my comment should be judged on its content. That's exactly why I usually edit from a shared ip — my edits speak for themselves. I have decided to use a registered name for comments on wikispace, because I know perfectly well from observation and experience how rampant anti-ip bigotry is. In article space, it matters not because you can't quarrel with the quality of my edits. However in talk space, it has become rather fashionable to ignore the content of an ip's comments. Unit56 (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't take offense, I tried to make that clear. It is not unexpected for suspicion to arise when a brand new account shows up to make a point; that's why we have WP:SOCK. I assumed you weren't of ill intent, that's why I took the time to write the above. --Bobak (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Suspicion of what? The comment stands on its own; shouldn't matter who wrote it. At any rate, for the record, I've never even heard of you and I've been here on and off since mid-2004. So, there's no boogeyman sock. The only thing I take offense at is you making a production on ANI about who left a comment instead of simply acknowledging the point. Well that, and you telling me to 'calm down' when I rather calmly objected to you publicly attacking me for some wholly imaginary insult to your character. My intent was not to quibble with or to criticize you personally, but to uphold an important principle of wikipedia, which you were breaking in a small but symbolically important way. I'll just close by noting that if you has simply kept your response to the content rather than the contributor, then yet another tiny but unpleasant wikipedia drama would have been avoided. Unit56 (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- And I'm supposed to take your word for 2004, right? --Bobak (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)