User talk:87.211.151.42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm free as a bird

[edit] History

Here's what I think happened -- You mentioned that you "deleted my ID". The only thing I could come up with that this meant, was that I "Identified" who you were, and you removed that identification. And you referenced Help:Talk page, possibly thinking that identifying someone would be against the policies contained therein. I was confused by this, so I read the whole document, and the only thing I could come up with, was what I mentioned, that it was inappropriate to remove someone's content. When I called your bluff, you scoured through the page for something that gives you justification of your deletion of my comment. You found one such thing, the mentioning of "Other's delete comments after they have responded to them." Sure, that works, but 1) You didn't respond to it. 2) you didn't delete. If you'd like a chronology here it is:

  1. 17:17, 1 September 2006 (+ref to real user?) 'Talk page creation by McKay
  2. 87... removes ID from self
  3. McKay reverts change
  4. 87... reverts McKay's change and at the same time tells McKay that he removed ID, and references help talk
  5. McKay read through help talk, re-adds his content, and an explanation of why he did what he did again, and says that he couldn't find anything about IDs
  6. 87... removes McKay's content again with a weak justification (on mckay's page)
  7. Fyslee restores McKay's deleted comments, and says you might be User:Homy I don't even know who Fyslee is.
  8. 87... reverts Fyslee's change, no response on his page merely an edit history which says "("tough luck" suggest harassing, delete without reply)". I don't know what he means by that. I'm pretty sure that 87... should know the rules by now. At this phase, I think this change (not against McKay) is in violation of Removing Content
  9. McKay writes this post.

To me, this seems like a cut and dry case of (from Help:Talk page) "Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings."

I don't know, maybe my edits would be considered "harrassing", but I feel like I've been very clear as to what I was doing.

Also, there's the comment about good faith. You said that you were just trying to write something, and were accused of vandalism. I didn't ever accuse you of vandalism. All I said was that you might be QuasarQ. I didn't even call him a vandal, I merely explained to him why I reverted his changes. I don't recall, but I may have said (to him), that his changes might be considered vandalism. I think that I've assumed good faith rather extensively. You said that you removed the identification I gave you, and you referenced Help:Talk pages. My first thought was "Oh, really, is it against Wikipedia Policy to ID someone?" So I assumed good faith, and I read the Help:Talk page about 5 times trying to find something that supported your conclusion. I also read most of the referenced articles that seemed to apply, like Wikipedia:Removing warnings, and I couldn't find anything. So, sadly, the assumption of good faith failed.

If you feel I didn't assume enough good faith, please let me know, so I can endeavour to do better in the future.

Also, This doesn't mean I think you can't contribute valuably to wikipedia. On the contrary. I think this experience has helped you understand the rules of Wikipedia Better. I know that it has for me.

McKay 20:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)