Content deleted Content added
|
→That's enough: OK, but plz clarify
|
Floquenbeam (talk | contribs)
→That's enough: re
|
||
|
Line 1,707:
Do not post on Kevin's talk page again. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 19:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
:My posts were in good faith. His were not. Did I write something that was unfair? What? In addition, have you barred me from posting to his Talk for the rest of my Wikilife? Or what? And BTW, if there is an objection to use of [[WP:DICK]], first, I don't think I did anything unfair or inappropriate in using it. (I haven't used it for 2 years I don't believe.) And if the very nature of it is considered bad on WP, why is it even there, or allowed to stay there? I know these are several questions. I'm genuinely interested in answers. Thanks. [[User:Ihardlythinkso|Ihardlythinkso]] ([[User talk:Ihardlythinkso#top|talk]]) 20:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
::You're re-posting snark that is nearly identical to snark he has just removed from his talk page. "''My posts were in good faith. His were not.''" is not an accurate way to describe that behavior. There's a reasonable way to refer to [[WP:DICK]], and an unreasonable way to refer to it; "''you enjoy being some kind of [[WP:DICK]]''" isn't one of the reasonable ways. I tend to not care about occasional snark/rudeness but near-constant snark and rudeness get my attention. And doing so while there's an ArbCom request for a case about your behavior leads me to believe you aren't taking other peoples' concerns about this seriously. Noting that [[WP:RFCU/Ihardlythinkso]] is a redlink wasn't a way of sweeping that request under the carpet, it's saying that such an RFC is the next logical step. Kevin did a bad thing. It caused a month of hassle. It's over. So let's say it's for a month; by then, some new thing will be the Outrage Of The Month". --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 20:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
|
|||