User talk:163.1.141.7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Info-pictogram.png Attention:

This IP address, 163.1.141.7, is registered to Oxford University Computing Services and is shared by multiple users. Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking. In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact Oxford University Computing Services to report abuse.

If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that this need not necessarily be the IP address of your machine. In many cases, it turns out to be the IP address of a proxy server that communicates between your browser and the Wikimedia servers. Such proxies are shared among a huge number of users compared to the number of persons using your particular machine. If you are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself.

[edit] *

I see you threatened legal action. Do it again and you get banned. We do not tolerate this on Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also see you wrote: "At the top right of the Google page it provides a dictionary definition of the term, and the search results provide examples of its use in context. Idiot. 163.1.141.7 00:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)" in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ruzwana_Bashir. No personal attacks. I am not impressed by your behaviour. I am even less impressed by the fact that you deleted a whole VfD where the decision was to keep and started a new vote. While people were not informed, this was not the correct way of going about things. I would suggest that next time you want a previously submitted article to go back to VfD you either create a new subpage, or move the old page and then edit the redirect to the archived VfD, but make sure you place a note on the page to where the old archive is. Either that or ask an admin for assistance. You can ask me, I am one. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You blanked Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ruzwana_Bashir. I'm listing you on the vandalism page. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • P.S. It goes without saying: please don't blank pages again. I'm watching. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts

I note that you deleted the section regarding the disputed election a couple of times. There are many who would view that as troublesome. I just thought I'd add a couple of arguments and a personal word or two.

  • The election dispute was, in fact, news -- and is now notable as part of the history of the Oxford Union. It is the reason for the article's inclusion, so we can't delete it and keep the article. And the article went up for deletion and did not come back deleted.
  • This is one of the interesting things about some campus organizations -- you get all of the actors and pettiness of campus politics, but given the history and the nature of the institution, it is now taken seriously. That is also what is cool about the responsibility -- that as a student you can take responsbility for such an institution -- and that the group of students involved hold the responsibility to maintain the democratic process of picking its leaders.
  • I admire your efforts to protect your friend, and would counsel that you have succeeded. The article is properly balanced, and seems to leave it an open question as to whether the 'clique' theory or the 'defacement' accuastion is true. There's nothing in the article that definitively sheds a bad light on anyone, other than the Oxford Union has had some rough elections and needs to get its stuff together in fostering a better culture to prevent such occurances. (As a neutral reader, and a former campus journalist and newspaper editor, I would probably bet on the clique theory. Someone with other experience might guess the other way.)
  • Don't worry. I know it is startling to see something on campus appear to be 'part of your permanent record' as the old saw goes. But 1) that does go with the responsibility of getting involved in the leadership of this sort of thing; 2) don't worry, in my experience, the rest of the world understands that campus politics dust-ups are not that illuminating of a person's character -- but that may be an American phenomenon, I dunno; 3) this is Wikipedia we're talking about, I would never take the word of this thing against the word of someone actually involved in an event.

Food for thought. Chrisvls 19:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stop blanking this page!

It's useless trying to hide your edits. I have this page on my watchlist. Cheers. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I notice you wrote "I have the legal right to blank my own talk page, actually." What "legal" right might that be? For goodness sake, you're an anonymous user! You don't own this IP address! And if you have the "legal right" to blank your talk page, perhaps I have the legal right to revert you back again. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Actually, I think you'll find I do own this IP address. 163.1.141.7 07:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Excellent. Because you vandalised my user page, and you vandalised Kuro5hin, I'm blocking you for 24 hours. Please, have a think about your actions and come back a reformed individual. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Just a point of clarification, 163.1.141.7, the fact that you own the ip address is not the issue. It's that no one 'owns' their user talk page. It is simply a communication page. Policy and practice around Wikipedia is to keep the user talk page as a historical record of communications about issues. In some cases, we look at talk page discussions during dispute resolutions to assess if someone is acting in good faith. When the stuff on a user talk page gets old, out-dated, annoying, too big, etc., the practice is to archive it into another user sub-page. --Chris vLS 22:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks 163.1.141.7 23:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)