User talk:Tasc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1, 2

[edit] Unprotect

Your page is being unprotected so you can communicate in a civil manner. You may wish to read this discussion on ANI and think calm thoughts before commenting. pschemp | talk 18:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I can communicate in civil manner, when I'm addressed politely. But I refuse to communicate normally in response to:

• unjustified warnings
• vandalising of my talk user page
• repetitive use of terrible, highly unpleasant colours on my talk page after being told not to do so.

I assume that quietly and indefinitely banning an active editor with almost 8 thousands edits for threats could do only inexperienced admin and failure to report my case only supports opinion that user wasn't sure about his actions. I reckon that for the majority of editors it can be clear (well, may be after reviewing all diffs of our discussion) that it wasn't a threat, but rather a figure of speech. --Tasc 08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As I'm currently blocked indefinitely, I find every attempt to doubt my words or try to speak with me on any other wp pages highly offensive. User:Coelacan, would you like to copy this as well? Thank you, --Tasc 17:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Death threats are not acceptable. "I'll fucking kill you" could be interpreted as a death threat. Your only hope of getting the indef lifted is to apologize for that remark and make it clear you weren't making a death threat. pschemp | talk 18:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll fucking kill you cannot be interpreted as a death threat unless it's said personally (i.e. in person) and with corresponding attitude. I wasn't making a death threat. As for apologies, I really need help here 'cause I don't really know how to start: sorry J Di, that you vandalized my talk page, or sorry, J Di that you have such a poor choice of colours, or sorry, that you're exceeded admin privileges.

P.S. Things indeed could be interpreted differently, and it seems to me that using irritating colours on user's talk page after repeatedly being told not to do so could easily qualify for incitement. --Tasc 19:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And what is "you'll be sorry"? Also not a threat? — coelacan talk — 19:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

not, why? --Tasc 19:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you've requested that I address you here, I'll cut and paste what I said:

So, he believes that he shouldn't have been warned for incivility, someone was vandalizing his talk page (when?), and he finds J Di's signature to be aesthetically unsound, therefore he was justified to "refuse to communicate normally in response".

— coelacan talk — 19:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I shouldnt've been warned for incivility
2. There was typo, it meant to be my user page.
3. I find colours of his signature irritating, distracting and disgusting! and not aesthetically unsound. I requested twice not to use it on my talk page, as I tried to keep this place clean and visually neutral. He IGNORED both requests.

And btw, don't you yourself find it rational and polite to address user where he can respond? --Tasc 19:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never said that I like the colour I picked for my signature (I actually don't and I'm open to civil suggestions), but I'm not going to change my signature just for you when the message asking me to do so is uncivil. Also, I haven't vandalised your user talk page. J Di ^talk 19:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

DON'T USE THIS COLOUR ON MY TALK PAGE. WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND SUCH SIMPLE REQUEST? You have vandalised my talk page, you blanked it. --Tasc 19:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It did not occur to me to address you here. Now, what is "you'll be sorry" if not a threat? And you don't think that either of these two edits are incivil? — coelacan talk — 20:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it didn't occur to you. You see only someonelse's incivility. It's a figure of speech. I don't think that either of those worth civility warning, not to mention block. You didn't attempt to cooperate, you've tried to catch me, so to say, on bad CSS knowledge, whereas yourself were wrong. And after I pointed that out what've you done? tried to appeal to some virtual courtesy? I'm sorry, but I'm not ready to give free lessons of html/css. I'm not getting it why asking to find something yourself you find uncivil, but request to give you a free lessons not. You didn't explain why template was worth changing in a first place. --Tasc 20:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask for free lessons, I asked you to point out what supposed standard you were appealing to. You never did, because you never had one. %'s have equivalency with em's, and if they have better rendering support then we should use them. I explained numerous times that the change was worth making if it makes the template backwards compatible for other users and doesn't hurt rendering in newer browsers, so don't make that claim that I never explained why the template was worth changing. That is false. And why don't we continue this over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indefblock on User:Tasc? — coelacan talk — 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

per cents are not equivalent to em's. And how on earth do you know that it's a problem of better rendering support and it's not a particular users settings? We don't continue there because I'm indefinitely blocked by user J Di, did you forget about it? --Tasc 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, who is talking about civility! Who wants apologies! What a good example of admins' speech! --Tasc 21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

fines examplples of very good adminship. Give him more privileges. --Tasc 21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also recommend that community evaluate J Di's behaviour. --Tasc 21:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

well, civility1 so far. --Tasc 22:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BRoy titles templates poll

Hi, Tasc! I've just started a poll about Category:British royal titles templates, and would really value your input - please do have your say! Cheers, – DBD does... 13:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)