User talk:BuddhaInside

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Restored from a previous version -- Tim Starling 04:06, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hey there, User:Jimbo Wales would like to chat with you privately [1]. -- Cyan 03:21, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Handy stuff due to Cyan

Here is where I track discussion on BuddhaInside's talk page.

Oldest to newest:

  • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete4368
  • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete0655
  • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete6633
  • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete5253
  • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete3091
  • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete2201
  • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete0441
  • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete2743
  • content-free move war between RickK and BuddhaInside
    • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete5002
    • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete5001
    • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete4259
    • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete1908
    • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete1785
    • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete9827
    • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete6931
    • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete7247
    • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete2985
  • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete5894
  • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete5698
  • User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete8671

See also Wikipedia:Problem users/BuddhaInside

Talk with Cyan re: lists of heterosexuals moved to user talk:Cyan by BuddhaInside

Recreating the page is this way after it has been deleted through the proper channels is bordering on vandalism. I would like to remind of what Jtdirl said here:

It is not wiki policy to allow a page that was deleted to be put back like that. If that is done, a sysop will simply delete it outright. If wiki decides to delete these pages (and on the votes so far it is a foregone conclusion) then they will be deleted and any attempt to try to recreate the same page by the back door will be seen as vandalism and deleted on sight. FearÉIREANN 21:50, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Angela 00:22, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So you are using the rule that users can generally control their own talk pages to keep people from messaging you. That confirms my opinion of your previous actions.Ark30inf 00:26, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

BuddhaInside, refusing to communicate with other users on your talk page by consistently blanking it is not in the spirit of Wikiquette and WikiLove, which are fundamental concepts of the Wikipedia community. Nor is your behavior on the silly List of heterosexuals. You are welcome to make contributions to Wikipedia, but if you continue with your current trolling, it is likely that you will end up being banned. Please focus on useful contributions instead of alienating other contributors. Thank you! Note that this page might be protected if you continue to blank it, to guarantee that at least these messages are a matter of public record.—Eloquence 00:45, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)

For the record, it must be noted that he appears to be perfectly willing to communicate with other users on their talk pages (like mine, for example). -- Cyan 01:54, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Just some advice - it's probably a bad idea to try and edit VfD at the moment. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/temp might be an idea if you don't want your comments to be lost in the edit wars. Angela 03:24, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Edit war

While your support is appreciated, I would prefer it if you participated in the arguments on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion so we can bring an end to this pointless conflict.—Eloquence 04:15, Sep 7, 2003 (UTC)


Is it regular that a user may not edit his own pages ?

It is widely believed that this user is a banned troll returning to cause more havoc. It would be interesting to know if it is Adam, DW or one of the other neanderthals that return to screw up pages periodically. FearÉIREANN 22:15, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Heterosexual list

How do you prove that someone is a heterosexual, given the fact that those who express the strongest distaste for homosexuality and put the strongest emphasis on their own heterosexuality also have a higher likelihood of being closet homosexuals? [2] On the other hand, who would claim to be a homosexual while not being one, given that this is not an attitude one can derive substantial social or personal advantages from? It seems the data on homosexuals is much more reliable than the data on heterosexuals.—Eloquence 03:22, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)

Camembert unprotected this page, following my request on wikipedia talk:protected page. Martin

BuddhaInside (I choose to have no content on my user or talk page)

Not your choice to make, love. Sorry. Martin 08:26, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Reiterate request to have User:BuddhaInside and User talk:BuddhaInside deleted. After deletion, would prefer that both pages be protected -BuddhaInside

    • This user has already been involved in two major edit wars. The talk page should be open in case that unfortunate situation arises again no matter how unlikely it may be. I think the user page can be protected if thats what he wishes though.Ark30inf 02:30, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The problem is that he is going to insist on the deletion every time someone writes anything on it. This is impractical, although current deletion policy (point 7 on immediate deletions) does seem to say an admin has the right to delete these pages on request. Perhaps in this case he might be better advised simply to blank his pages if he so wishes. Angela 02:37, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
If he were to engage himself in another edit war where would discussion take place on it? If there is another locale then thats fine (I'm still new here). I am just worrying that he is attempting to shut off debate about his actions. Which have been a bit controversial.Ark30inf 02:40, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Blanking is not identical to deleting, and doesn't achieve my objective at all. I'll discuss any specific page on the talk for that page, but I'm going to request my user and talk pages be deleted anytime content is added. -BuddhaInside
Perhaps if you gave the reasons for wanting them deleted and protected. The only one I can come up with in my limited knowledge is that you want history of discussions about controversy you are involved in deleted and to shut off discussion of any controversial actions you might take.Ark30inf 02:45, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Edit war discussions really need to take place on the talk page of in question. The fact that they often end up scattered across various user pages is wrong. This prevents an accurate record being kept and hinders those trying to follow what is going on. So, edit wars aren't the issue here. The issue I have is that talk pages are the means to communicate with other users. It is simply not acceptable to demand deletion every time someone leaves a comment there. Angela

Okay, I understand now. ThanksArk30inf 02:49, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

BuddhaInside, do you have any reason for this request or are you just being pedantic? Any sysop can still read the contents of a deleted page so you are not hiding anything by doing this. Angela

Oh yes, my reason is very simple. I want my name and talk link to appear in red on the "recent changes" page. I really don't mind if sysops can review the history of my page, that doesn't bother me at all. -BuddhaInside
I'm afraid that isn't possible. Red links are there to demonstrate a user is new. They rarely stay red for long as new people are welcomed fairly quickly. You are most certainly not new, so this does not apply to you. Please try to focus on writing articles rather than worrying about what colour your name appears. Angela 02:59, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Request denied.

You are not having your pages deleted. Will you just quit bothering the village pump please. You can only request that sub pages be deleted there, not actual user pages. All current users must have a user and talk page. There is no way of getting these deleted unless you quit, and even then it's not guaranteed. Angela 00:22, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

BuddhaInside, I think of myself as just a guy who likes to contribute to Wikipedia, but from time to time I have disagreements with other contributors here. Some are right (making me in the wrong), but sometimes I know I'm right & the other party (frankly speaking) has her/his head her/his ass. At this point, the trick is making other people see things from my POV. Now I don't know all of the tricks, but an important place to start is not to blank my Talk Pages.
Take a look at my own Talk Pages -- some of which are archived. You get to read the words of people who agree with me & disagree with me in their own words. Do they convince you? Or do they make you think they are simply jerks? Do you see how useful a Talk Page can be?
Consistantly blanking your Talk Page only ruins your own credibility. Please reconsider. -- llywrch 00:50, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Militantly blanking your talk page to prevent communication is childish vandalism.--Flockmeal 04:45, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

How different is it from User:Evercat always blanking his talk page in a similar way ? Anthère

The difference is timing and interaction levels. Evercat every so often comes through and cleans-up his/her talk page. BuddhaInside, on the other hand, is acting in a passive/aggressive manner, in reaction to being taken to task on several rather (IMHO) silly List of _____ pages. No one, that I've seen, has accused Evercat of non-responsiveness. Ducker 11:40, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
well, the only time I put something on Evercat page, he blanked it 30 mn later. I did not get a comment.
Acknowledged. From looking over Evercat's Talk page history, I can see no edits by you more recent than July 7. While I don't know why e didn't respond to you, in other incidents, e responds on the the other party's talk page. Ducker
It was because I didn't see the need. Anthere was simply telling me something. I suppose I should have said thanks - sorry. Thanks. :-) I don't have a big problem with BuddhaInside blanking his talk page, because I see the talk page as more like Wiki's internal email system than a message forum - the point of them (to me, at least) is simple delivery of messages to each other; you can assume that when he blanks the page, he's read the message. Evercat 13:53, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hard to say from today perspective :-) I remember that I sort of waited for an answer/commen then. But it is no big deal, and I have no pb with you blanking your talk page. It was just a little bit puzzling. But just as you said, one can assume that when another blank his talk page, he first read the messages on it. And so is my feeling in this buddha case. Anthère
In any case, no matter what else can be reproached to this buddha; I stand up that a personal page is a personal page, as long as there is nothing strongly offensive on it or illegal, users can do whatever they want with their user pages. Blank them, put terribly pov rant, put their biography for self-promotion. Anthère
My take on this is that the talk page is not exclusively the domain of the user in question. You should note that there has been no attempt to keep buddha's user page; the fact that e wants it blank is more-or-less being honored. Ducker
But as far as I am concerned, a user is a user -even if painful- and should have the same rights than those granted to others. Or just ban him to make clear he has no rights, because unable to work with others. That will solve this issue. Just don't stand in the middle.
As I understand it whether or not buddha will be banned is in discussions. My vote would be for such. In the meantime, IMO, this page should be available in its most immediate, and un-expurgated form. Ducker 13:22, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
In the meantime, imho, this page should be available in its most immediate form to the USER it belongs. Anthère

And how is a user supposed to "talk" to you if his talk page is protected ? That really escape me... Anthère


since this is the second time I unprotect this page today, I think that comment of mine could have received an answer. I will ask it again in case I was not clear. Some editors are complaining this buddha refuses to communicate (I saw him communicating on the consensus page yesterday with Angela btw). How is this Buddha supposed to communicate with you if you protect his talk page ? How correct is that to protect *someone else talk page* ?
Protecting page is usually used to protect the encyclopedia from being damaged. Could anyone explain to me how blanking a user talk page is damaging the encyclopedia in any way ? Anthère
I agree with your point -- Its certainly impossible to argue that "the policy states" the opposite when there is no such policy. Further, plenty of people routinely delete/summarize their talk pages. They tend to be polite about it--responding in some way to each. Talk pages are used for communication. If your blocking that communication, you block other users from helping you and supporting you--you should not be surprised if your fast being ostracized. Writing articles, unless you remain firmly in the copyeditor category -- takes communication -- period. It may be that your case will make new policy.-戴&#30505sv 04:13, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)


Hmmm... Seems to me that we Wikipedians are missing a crucial point here. If we respect the right of individual free speech (as we do), we must equally respect the right to remain silent. Indeed, forcing an individual to speak against his will is probably more invasive than forcing that same individual to remain silent against his will. In short, BuddaInside, I know absolutely nothing about your edits, your ability to cooperate with others, or your contribution to this community. But unless your contribution here is so negative that you are formally banned from editing (as a small number of very disruptive people have been), then you have every right to blank any and all comments on this page (including, of course, this comment). It is your page, and you are entitled to do as you like with it.

Best regards -- Tannin 07:43, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps if he was allowed to keep a blank page (something I don't have a problem with), he would stop demanding it be deleted. Could people please stop reverting to the non-blank version to see if this solves the problem. Thank you. Angela 19:10, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)
Interesting. I think my response to Tannin would be that this talk page does not belong to BuddhaInside. My talk page does not belong to me. Both, fundamentally, belong to Wikipedia. Wikipedia permits me to use one of its talk pages to discuss stuff. I summarise and refactor the talk page named after myself with the (implicit) consent of Wikipedia - if Wikipedia decides that my summarising is misleading, counter-productive, or otherwise a poor use of the resource, then I do not have a right to do so. Rather, if Wikipedia decides that it can do a better job than me, then it has a right to do so. The same applies to my user page - if Wikipedia decides that it can do a better job of describing the entity that is known as MyRedDice than I can, then it has a right to edit the user page named after myself, to be a more accurate description.
I'll leave as an exercise for the reader what it might mean for "Wikipedia" to make a decision. In any case, I suspect much of this discussion should be moved to wikipedia talk:talk page. Martin 23:09, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Even in a collective space, it may be better that the system leaves room for a bit of privacy and freedom of movement to its entities. As long as it does not hurt the system itself. In this case, the collective group does not seem to agree on whether it would hurt itself or not to let this little space private.
As a matter of interest, would you accept to take care of my user space while I take care of yours ? Anthère
Sounds like a fun idea :) It could be like a sort of exchange or something... Martin
Please do try if you feel like it, whenever you feel like it. Small changes, big changes. That might be a way of seeing how an entity perceive another entity. And then impact on both entities. Then we might change the paradigme :-) off to bed Anthère

The problem with Buddha's behaviour is not simply blanking his page, which others have done to their own, it is part of a pattern that involves ignoring other people's comments here, misrepresenting facts on talk pages, twisting articles to match his agenda, recreating deleted articles under marginally different names and insisting even when over 70% of people vote for an article's deletion that they cannot delete it because it hasn't a so-called 'consensus'. Evercat blanks his page, but he shows in how he reacts elsewhere that he had read what was said on his page and taken it seriously. He shows other users respect in everything he does. Buddha has shown contempt for everyone else's opinion. His blanking isn't a case of tidying his page, it is a case of telling the wiki community 'feck off. I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks. I'll do what I want and will remove any criticism of me'. FearÉIREANN 19:30, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Either that or he's trying to provoke an argument. Perhaps do not feed the trolls might be a useful thing to remember (this advice is aimed at myself - not to be taken as criticism of anyone above). Angela

Anthere, Wikipedia is not about "rights". Wikipedia is about creating an encyclopedia. The talk pages serve this purpose -- they allow me to check the history of an article, see who made a certain change, and ask that user for clarification, for example. Talk pages are public for a reason -- so that other users can add feedback and explanations if the user in question is not available. Just look at what we are doing right now -- we're using a user talk page for group discussion. Yet you want to argue that BuddhaInside somehow has the "right" to blank all of these comments without any consideration for the users who make them? Just because they are on "his" user talk page? That's, frankly, ridiculous. BuddhaInside is deliberately trying to stir up trouble. He enjoys it. This whole discussion is enjoyable to him because it serves his purpose -- to annoy as many people as possible. But his purpose is not our purpose. Our purpose is to create an encyclopedia. And since BuddhaInside has proven in the past that he is very stubborn, the most reasonable course of action is to hard-ban him.—Eloquence 08:39, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

Eloquence, I agree with you this would be unacceptable behavior to blank talk page of *encyclopedic* articles. But this is not an encyclopedic article, this is a user talk page. If one want to discuss articles with this Buddha, one can discuss the article on the article talk page. A user talk page is *not* the best place to discuss an encyclopedic article, the article talk page is. And this Buddha is actually using article talk pages. You are confusing the two spaces.
If one want to discuss how problematic a user is, one may discuss this in "problematic editor" where it will meet a larger audience, because the average user is not supposed to guess a discussion over an editor is taking place here (unless one begins to scream in summary box, but we are polite people, we don't do this).
I trust that this Buddha is reading comments left on his talk page, just as every other user blanking his talk page is doing. And we can quietly go on discussing the topic, and he blanks it from time to time. So what ? Everything is in the history anyway. You are getting disturbed by very little problems.
Buddha is only a problem on this talk page because a couple of people decided it was bad to blank a talk page. But other people don't think it bad. I see no clear majority on one side or the other. But the discussion over "ownership" of user pages is interesting.
You mention it is a problem for the whole encyclopedia as it disturbs course of event. Just drop the matter and leave that page quietly alone, it won't disturb the encyclopedia any more. Reverting the talk page to add an argument if fine and constructive, reverting the talk page just to revert it, is just further fueling the conflict. Just opposite to trying to deescalate a conflict and try to resolve it.
If this Buddha is seriously damaging articles, to the point you think he needs to be banned, I suppose most editors will agree with you it might make sense. But most editors will *not* follow you on banning people just because they want a clean talk page. The only reasonable course of action is just to tolerate this non hurting fantasy, and discuss articles issues on article talk pages.
Anthère
I'm not going to disagree with you on this, Eloquence, rather state a subtle point of difference. I'm not familiar with BI's edit history or anything else (though I gather from the above that it ain'y pretty). But the way I see it, it's an either-or. Either this talk page of his is his to do with as he sees fit (subject only to the usual legal and reasonable-member-of-the-community considerations), or his behaviour requires a ban, in which case he also forfeits the priveledge of a personal talk page. I've read Martin's argument above and respect it, but I don't agree with it. In summary, I believe that a reasonable amount of room for individuality (such as that which user pages and user talk pages provides) is both a pleasant and an ultimately productive thing. Am I making any sense? Tannin 09:13, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Yes, you are. That's exactly the point. When a respected member like Evercat blanks his talk page after reading a short notice, he exercises "a reasonable amount of creativity". So does Martin when he occasionally refactors discussions. When someone like BuddhaInside routinely blanks discussions, including those which are not directed at him but about him, this goes far beyond reasonably creative editing. If his contributions were top notch and he was otherwise a well behaving member of the community with a sincere goal to build an encyclopedia, such eccentricities might be forgiven. But as he is behaving in a deliberately obnoxious manner that practically screams for feedback (e.g. by recreating the "List of heterosexuals" dozens of times after it has been deleted), his conduct here is all the less forgivable. Those who defend him should recognize that the spectrum of obnoxious behavior goes far beyond simple vandalism. Repeated and deliberate trolling is just as problematic for the community as a whole. This is why Lir was originally banned, and BuddhaInside is behaving in much the same way. I and others have asked him several times to change his behavior, but he hasn't even responded -- neither here nor elsewhere.—Eloquence 09:37, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)
Please, Erik, do make a solid reference list of behaviors for which this Buddha is guilty. With references, links, arguments and dates. I agree the behavior over the lists was wrong (when was that already ?) but I would be interested to see the arguments given for banning a user just for choosing what to do with his talk page. If the argument is that the page is private, there is no true argument for banning. If the page is public, there is no reason why editors would be alone to edit their page. Perhaps the best choice is a in-between solution, with a certain degree of liberty for each one, including the liberty to blank his talk page. I believe routinely banning annoying users is just as problematic to the community as a whole, than not allowing a user to blank his talk page if he feels like it. Anthère


Adding Tristan comments for posterity Anthère

okay, i admit i only just discovered this argument (and it may have been resolved or whatever, [missed the boat again]) but..

What's wrong with someone blanking their own talk page??? Who the hell do people think they are "reverting" the changes someone makes to their own page! The user page, and its discussion page are the two pages that a user should have some control over!

If someone blanks their page, because they're ignoring you, it's their choice to ignore you. let them. You can add another comment to the talk page, (that's what it's for) but revert it!? If they're harming article pages, revert them, if they keep doing it, ban them. By all means keep an eye on people doing this.

But telling people that they can't blank their own user page (and then making it okay for someone who has been at wikipedia for longer), smacks of arrogance and elitism. It's a good way to discourage new people from helping wikipedia. --Tristanb 02:52, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(BTW i'm not getting at anyone, that's just my gut response when i saw the VPump bit) doesn't matter anyway, it'll be blanked soon :-)

Adding this buddha comments, because, hey ! this is his talk page, he should be allowed to put his personal comments on it, and not have his comments be blanked (my, how could people argue that this Buddha refuses to communicate with them, and at the same time erase the comments he puts on his talk page, that really escape me). Anthère

In 100 words or less: I'm not here to discuss me. If you want to discuss me, don't expect my participation or cooperation. If you want to discuss an edit, I participate in talk pages for my edits. If your opinion is that I am a troll, thanks for the WikiLove and fuck off. If your opinion is that I am not a troll, thanks for the WikiLove, hugs all around. I will not debate the content of this post, I will be blanking it tomorrow, I will wiki aggressively, I will illuminate hypocrisy, and I won't apologize. -BuddhaInside


putting back some comments I made, erased by Erik

thanks Buddha
unprotecting the page as usual :-) If you do not own the page, sysops do not own it either Anthère

Putting back some comment Martin made, erased by Erik

Thanks Anthere. I moved most of the former contents of this page to Wikipedia:Problem users/BuddhaInside, where most of is better placed. People can and should continue to edit this page if they desire to do so. Martin 11:47, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)


[edit] further discussion

Some hold that marriage is a holy act that must be held to the traditions of the Christian faith. These religious advocates consider marriage to be fundamentally a faith-based expression of commitment, which is recognized by the state as a secondary attribute. Extending this logic, for the state to recognize a social arrangement contrary to the traditional definition of marriage as "marriage" is to dilute the perceived meaning of marriage.

The principal counter argument to this point of view is that it is not the role of the state to recognize any single definition of marriage over any other, and that alternative arrangements between consenting adults deserve equal recognition before the law.

There is a third way argument held by even fewer than the previous two. Namely, that the state should have no role whatsoever in recognizing relationships between individuals, be they faith based or secular, heterosexual or homosexual. This argument hold that expressions of commitment between individual consenting adults should only be binding so far as they are recognized by the individuals involved and the witnesses thereof, and it is not the place of the state to be involved whatsoever.

Might be appropriate in Christian view of marriage, but there's quite a bit of similar stuff already there - can I leave it to you to figure out whether your points are already covered? Thanks. Martin 10:44, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Please stop marking major edits as minor. Consistently doing this will lead you to be banned. --Jiang 06:44, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why have you re-added "a quick check that an individual fact, within an accepted subject, passes the criteria of requiring 1000 google hits to avoid deletion."? How is it any different from the statement above it? I have moved it to the talk page. Angela

I wonder if your search for hypocrisy isn't showing a little confirmation bias. If you wish to reply, you can do it on my talk page. -- Cyan 22:08, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Here is the single edit where BuddhaInside says something on his talk page.

Isn't witholding consent the same as voting for its deletion? A reason for your opposition would be useful. Angela 02:10, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, but one vote for No isn't good enough to prevent deletion. RickK 03:22, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

User_talk:BuddhaInside/Delete3091

User_talk:BuddhaInside/Delete5253

Does "Withhold consent" mean yes or no? BL

I already asked this at User talk:BuddhaInside/Delete2201. Just one problem with this idiotic moving of pages. Angela 15:18, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you object to the rules, why not say so on the talk page? That page explains why the rule was added. Otherwise all I would need to do would be to move all the articles that piss me off to my user space and then happily delete them. Appealing as it sounds to remove software engineering from existence, it isn't really a good idea. Angela 01:31, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hey there, User:Jimbo Wales would like to chat with you privately [3]. -- Cyan 03:21, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is there any ordering to the /delete**** that you keep moving your talk page to? Is this done by a script or do you spend your time doing it manually? I'm betting it's a scritp. ThereIsNoSteve

hello!

Hi BuddhaInside. I just wanted to say thanks for spotting that security flaw for us. In the wrong hands, it could have been dangerous. -- Tim Starling 09:30, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I can fix the page history for this thing - in a wikipedia:move style - if anyone's interested? Otherwise, I won't bother. Martin 22:08, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd rather that than have the history deleted (I assume all the deletexxxx pages are going to be deleted?), but I'm not hugely concerned about it so it's your choice if you're the one volunteering to spend the time on it. I would appreciate it though. Records are a good thing and all that. Angela 22:19, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Never got round to it. Now that everything's blown over, I'd sooner just delete them. Martin 21:50, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think the content should be kept even if the history isn't. It's a useful case study for stuff about the ownership of user pages and the rules over blanking them etc, which is why I've just replaced the above. Angela 22:21, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
OK, I can respect that. Martin 22:26, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Hello.

Hello. Why is you blocked, poor editor> I hope you get unblocked soon. Randalph P. Williams 11:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haha

I was going through the blocklist for fun and noticed Buddhalnside was the first user to be blocked on Wikipedia (ever.) and got a mark of approval from Jimmy himself FinalWish 03:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LOL

First blocked user. Congrats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.128.101 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)