Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning/Offtopic comments
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
87.189 is currently blocked for edit-warring
... to keep the spoiler template on Sleeping Beauty. Well done. - David Gerard 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's a pity that he couldn't keep his head clear. He seems intelligent and quite insightful when he works within the rules, and surely more intelligent arguments here are only a benefit. But why the need for a whole section about the block? --Kizor 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Six editors deeply involved in this debate have full two-word names as their nicks... suddenly I'm feeling underdressed. --Kizor 06:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Er.... you lost me here. What has the length of the name to do with anything? --87.189.99.112
- Just kidding around, seeing as how several of the most active debaters of that time were using full, real names, and I'm hiding behind an obvious nick. It doesn't mean much. :P --Kizor 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Er.... you lost me here. What has the length of the name to do with anything? --87.189.99.112
- My head was clear alright, I just don't usually give a fuck while IPing. I use dynamic IPs anyway and couldn't use the old one if I tried very, very, very, very hard, so the whole blocking is more funny than anything else.
- Anyway, there are some badly deceptive admins at work here, and I did my share to try and stop them. Now it's up to the non-IPs to get these guys kicked out (or at least reverted), I stick to the dicsussion. --87.189.99.112
- Six editors deeply involved in this debate have full two-word names as their nicks... suddenly I'm feeling underdressed. --Kizor 06:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
A complete non sequitur
Just to take people's minds off the seriousness of the issue, I'd like to thank all participants for helping improve my English skills. I doubt that I would've been able to use words like "superflous" or "undermining" before. :) --Kizor 21:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hahaha... thank you for that. That reduced a lot of wikistress in me! --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 22:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- The ignominy of this discussion is a blemish upon us! Yes, that really has nothing to do with what was said, but hey, its a non sequitur! David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)