User:Seven of nine

From Wikireligion

Revision as of 10:27, 7 February 2007 (view source) RyGuy (Talk | contribs) (→User Page) ← Previous diff		Revision as of 13:08, 7 February 2007 (view source) RyGuy (Talk | contribs) (→User Page) Next diff →
Line 35:		Line 35:
	#"Sorry for blocking you." is a very weak apology.		#"Sorry for blocking you." is a very weak apology.
	-- [[User:RyGuy|RyGuy]] 05:26, 7 February 2007 (EST)		-- [[User:RyGuy|RyGuy]] 05:26, 7 February 2007 (EST)
		+
		+	The following statement by Sir James Paul (that is also shown above) confuses me. "Your user page has been deleted per [[Wikireligion:Userpages]]. If you do it again you ''will not'' be blocked because you made it before the policy. --[[User:Sir James Paul|Sir James Paul]] 16:28, 5 February 2007 (EST)". Can this be explained? [[User:RyGuy|RyGuy]] 08:08, 7 February 2007 (EST)

---

Revision as of 13:08, 7 February 2007

Welcome to wikireligion. --Sir James Paul 20:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)

I thought you weren't going to edit here. And I dessyopped other users too. By the way, if you wish to talk to me, talk to me about current stuff, this is Wikireligion, not Wikikids anymore. ForestH2 20:48, 3 February 2007 (EST)

You can talk to ForestH2 here as long as you actualy edit articles. --Sir James Paul 21:23, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Sysops

Actualy I am working within policies because the policy was not suppose to go into effect until the 10. Also Arjun only has temporary adminship. Arjun is the last person who is going to be made a sysop this way. Peace. --Sir James Paul 09:20, 4 February 2007 (EST)

(please learn how to create new sections for new comment threads)

This is arbitrary and illogical. Where does it say "until the 10" in the policies available from the RFA page? Dumb dumb dumb idea. This will quickly dissolve just like wikikids. --Seven of nine 14:03, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Maybe you should look at the blog. And no, this will not fail like wikikids. --Sir James Paul 14:05, 4 February 2007 (EST)

what blog and why? if you have something to say about the site, it should be said here, not somethere else. --Seven of nine 14:08, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Look on the navigation pannel. The blog is there. --Sir James Paul 14:08, 4 February 2007 (EST)

First, I'm not going to register with Google in order to comment on this blog (and neither should other users have to). Second, its insane to have policies and discussions at a website separate from the actual wiki. And third, why wait until Feb 10 to start this policy? It was a bad idea to automatically make people sysops at wikikids, and its a bad idea here. You have a robust RFA process conceived, so implement it. --Seven of nine 14:17, 4 February 2007 (EST)

I don't care if you complain if you add content, but i do if all you do is compalin even if it is helpful. --Sir James Paul 14:19, 4 February 2007 (EST)

If the advice is helpful, follow it. It is irrelevant whether I add to articles or not. --Seven of nine 14:28, 4 February 2007 (EST)

User Page

Your user page has been deleted per Wikireligion:Userpages. If you do it again you will not be blocked because you made it before the policy. --Sir James Paul 16:28, 5 February 2007 (EST)

it is wrong to create a policy after you see a page you don't like, and then delete that page to enforce the policy. that's like arresting a person, and then passing the law later. Wrong wrong wrong. --Seven of nine 16:39, 5 February 2007 (EST)

No it is not wrong. What would be wrong is to make a policy saying that a person is to be blocked for vandalism with no warning, then going back and blocking people who have vandalised. --Sir James Paul 16:41, 5 February 2007 (EST)

It is wrong. Familiarize yourself with basic legal principles such as Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali and ex post facto laws. --Seven of nine 16:48, 5 February 2007 (EST)

I said if it was rude. --Sir James Paul 16:46, 5 February 2007 (EST)

It is not wrong at all. If some drug was legal, the it was made illegal then it is against the law for people to use that drug.You can't say I am going to follow the old law, you must follow the new. It would be expos facto for me to block you for making a rude user age, but deleting it is not. --Sir James Paul 16:56, 5 February 2007 (EST)

I'm getting the sense you are getting mad. For your own good I have blocked you for 30 min, I would hate to see you to get real mad and get a long block. --Sir James Paul 17:02, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Your userpage was extremely rude but just the same other actions by Sir James Paul have given him a 38 minute block. ForestH2 17:38, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Sorry about blocking you. --Sir James Paul 17:43, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Regarding your deletion of my page and the appropriateness of enforcing a rule that didn't exist when the page was created, just do me a quick favor. Look at the history for my page and note when I created it. It was before 21:22, 5 February 2007, right? Now look at when you created the userpage policy. that was at 21:22. Now, look at when you deleted my userpage: that was at 21:23 with the reason "Deleted per Wikireligion:Userpages". So, we can see that the rule was created and enforced after the act occurred, the very definition of nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali. It was wrong for you to do that. Me pointing out that fact was not me "getting mad" and blocking me for that was wrong as well. --Seven of nine 18:38, 5 February 2007 (EST)

You created the userpage at 14:16. Please vote in Sir James RFA is you wish him to be desysopped. ForestH2 19:16, 5 February 2007 (EST)

1. I agree with Seven of Nine.
2. I disagree with James' blocks to "cool down".
3. "Sorry for blocking you." is a very weak apology.

-- RyGuy 05:26, 7 February 2007 (EST)

The following statement by Sir James Paul (that is also shown above) confuses me. "Your user page has been deleted per Wikireligion:Userpages. If you do it again you will not be blocked because you made it before the policy. --Sir James Paul 16:28, 5 February 2007 (EST)". Can this be explained? RyGuy 08:08, 7 February 2007 (EST)