History: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hey—it's not a huge deal, but there are about six requests in a six day backlog. Do you think you could deal with them? Thanks. i ^said 00:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been on since the eigth, and Deskana was online at the moment. I asked him to do it; so no backlog. Thanks though. i ^said 22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have connection problems. Secretlondon 17:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's good. I was hoping we hadn't lost another excellent user. i ^said 23:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a general message on my userpage that my connection can be dodgy (although it should be getting better). If I were to leave I'll leave in a strop, like last time ;) Secretlondon 22:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I've always taken it as you might not be available, but not neccesarily because of connection problems. i ^said 02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, actually the name of a religious figure IS NOT a "breach" of a username policy. To quote it, "Usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way, or promote one religion over another. (Note that simple expressions of faith are allowed unless they are disruptive, but are discouraged.)" My intentions are none of these. I'm simply professing my "religion", not forcing it upon anyone else and it is not disrespectful in ANY way, distasteful or provocative. Please reconsider. Kevin 01:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't believe a genuine Buddhist would call themselves Buddha, it seems very arrogant. You are claiming that all your edits are those of an enlightened being? Secretlondon 01:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not referring to myself as one, silly. It's simply my religion...It is what I follow and I simply think that is the best name for me, as it illustrates what I believe and the fact that I choose it as my username doesn't mean that I am being arrogant. I'm not saying that all of my edits are those of an enlightened being, quite the contrary. As I said before it is a simple expression of faith, nothing more. I'm not shoving it down anyones throat. None of it is against the username policy. Kevin 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm offended by it as I believe you are claiming your writing to be that of a Buddha. Calling yourself a Buddha is NOT an expression of faith.Secretlondon 01:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secretlondon is correct, you're essentially saying you are Buddha, it'd be like calling yourself JesusChrist. Now DevoutChristian would be a "simple expression" of faith.Rlevse 02:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just told you I wasn't doing that, if I was then I would proclaim to the world, and sooner or later I would be a massive celebrity. Why are you being so uncivil? This is an expression of "faith", nothing more. What do you call an expression of "Faith", in a username? I certainly don't think users like "Catholic", "God Allmighty", "Jesus Saves", "Shiva Indis", "Gautama Buddha", "Ganesha", "Vishnu Prasad", "Allah-u-Akbar", "Moses 2007", or "MessiahAndrw" are any better than I am. These don't offend you? They might offend me because they seem to be claiming that they themselves are a prophet, god or a messiah. Do they offend you? If they don't, I can say that its your own personal opinion of your judgement of my requested user name and frankly thats not what the user name policy calls for. If it does, than why do these accounts still exist? Why hasn't someone do anything to them? Some of them, like me, are a simple expression of faith while some of them are, as you say, "offensive". Who are you to say what is and isn't an expression of "faith"? Kevin 02:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading what you wrote in the usurp web page makes me want to clarify a few things. When I put breach with quotations I didn't mean to point out that you had a typo, honestly I didn't notice there was one in the first place . I don't see why my username before has anything to do with it, I admit its a little too much of a current event fad anyway, but it doesn't have any aspect of Tanha. Kevin 12:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think any of those are offensive, could you at least give me a hint of what wouldn't be offensive? Thanks, Kevin 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally recommended to avoid names with religious and/or political overtones. the username policy says "Usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion in a distasteful, disrespectful, or provocative way, or promote one religion over another. (Note that simple expressions of faith are allowed unless they are disruptive, but are discouraged.)"

As you are discouraged from making usernames that are expressions of faith I don't see much point in making a Buddhist whitelist for you. Why not come up with something unique? Secretlondon 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Alright Kevin 22:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so testy. I was just pointing out the policy rules. Kevin 00:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your great denies on CHU which are defending the entity of Wikipedia. Rudget Contributions 17:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..is located here. Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 19:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Г^edʃtǁcɭ 23:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say this: What? No I wasn't! (Well with the blocking part.) But, I will try not to bite newbies (I admit that I have a real problem with that). Sometimes, I get real mad at people trying to promote stuff, I mean, some other day, I remember this person saying "Know English" to some IP, so I told him not to personally attack them. Can you help me limit my biting, because when I get really mad at Vandalism and other stuff, I start going crazy "biting" people. I will try to stop that, but, I know that I can't block people, but, I'm just giving them a perspective. I apologize for my disruptive edits and any inconvenience I may have caused you. Thank you for notifying me and have a nice day. I will then let User:Airbus A350 know not to change the username. --Goodshoped35110s 01:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I would also like to say this:

I know I can't block people, in fact, I don't even remember saying I can block people. Check my contribs by clicking 511 on my sig. Although I did say something else about blocking, but yeah... and also please do not personally attack me by saying this:

"I suggest you lay off the username stuff until you get a better idea of how stuff works. If you continue to be rude to newbies and pretend that you can block people - then someone will be blocked - YOU!"

I do not mean that you are going to be blocked, just giving you an example of what you said...

As I said, I apologize for any disruption and/or inconvenience that I have caused. Thank you and have a nice day.

You have told several people that they will be blocked - they do not know that you cannot block people. You are just going on your interpretation of the rules. They think they are in trouble and have to do things when they don't. You can tell someone that they've been reported (and rejected in most of your username reports), but you are actually making newbies request username changes because they think you speak with authority. Your comments to User_talk:MsKellyRowland were unacceptable - you didn't just add a spam template - you were chatty and rubbing it in. I suspect they are just an obsessive fan as they already have a real article and have no need for userpage spam. Basically you are being rude and abrasive and speaking with an authority you don't have. You need to not only read the policies but also see how we implement them. Using templates is recommended if you cannot use polite language. Secretlondon 01:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that. I'm thinking of taking a Wikibreak, but I occasionally welcome IP users in Good faith (which I try to follow) and help those who are in need. Now about the spam template, it is a promotion, but I didn't know about the rubbing-it-in part. I don't even know how to use those templates because it is a little bit confusion, so I created my own templates. Most of them have been deleted by either me or the others, but I try to assume good faith. If you can, you can kind-of coach me, and I will take a break from warning users, and just welcome IP addresses and give help to those who need help. --Goodshoped35110s 02:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time (as a bureaucrat) but there is a mentoring scheme. Secretlondon 03:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User is what you are looking for. Secretlondon 03:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of Siddhartha. It is a very common name in Asia, India in particular. I don't see why it would be very controversial. Any thoughts? Kevin 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you get back to me on that? Kevin 02:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Siddhartha exists but has never edited and is usurpable. You'll need to apply for usurption again from the beginning to give the owner time to object (as before). Secretlondon 04:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I was just wondering if it was "appropriate" or not, thank you! Kevin 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I see you're on - someone uploaded cheney.gif which is first of all not Dick Cheney and second of all, not an appropriate image - I removed it from Cheney's page. I don't know how to tag an image for removal, so can you handle it or point me in the right direction? Thanks very much. Tvoz |talk 06:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure 1 sec. Secretlondon 06:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Tvoz |talk 07:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. SPA == Single Purpose Account (Wikipedia:SPA). Too acronym-happy I guess. Quatloo 06:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You declined the Usurpation of my username being renamed to User:Secret because the account was too "new". Note I was in the project since 2005, and this is just a new account since I lost the password to the other one. Can you still rename it. Thanks Jbeach ^sup 22:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]