User talk:Jerzy/My signature

If you add to this discussion, the other participant(s) won't be nearly as quickly aware of that, unless you also edit their respective talk page(s). A link to the corresponding section of each is at the a "*" below, and your updating the edit count and editing-time-stamp range there gives the participant further information.

6 msgs, 20:36, 9 thru 18:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
1. 20:36, 9 May 2005 R
2. 22:53, 9 May 2005 R
3. 23:19, 9 May 2005 J
4. 23:37, 9 May 2005 R
5. 02:40, 10 May 2005 J
6. 18:57, 10 May 2005 R
2 participants: Jerzy~t~*; User:RickK~t~*.
general topic: attrib'ing one's IP edits; false accusation
implicit reference: [

When I'm using this account, I always sign it with "RickK" followed by the four tildes so that people know it's really me (tho the User page affirms that). I generally come back and re-sign when I'm on my home computer, but sometimes I forget, but I'd really rather you kept the signture as I wrote it. RickK 66.60.159.190 20:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in my further involvement, tho i remain nonplussed at your inability or unwillingness to log on, and your failure even now to just fix the result in a way that includes a kosher sig. I think i was right to do what i did; i'd be disappointed if someone didn't do something equivalent in another situation like this one, where forgery is being exploited by an apparent sock-team operating in heavy bad faith: your non-sigs add to the noise that must be sorted thru.

In fact, i think you should forgo asking to be taken for RickK whenever you're in this situation where only those who have memorized your IP or go to look at yr u:page know whether to believe the pseudo-sig: when your're an IP, bear the associated costs instead of shifting higher costs to your colleagues. Your editing in good faith with a pseudo-wig under those circumstances serves as precedent for anyone who floods us with multiple AOL-IP forgeries RickK-style ps-sigs (say on random VfDs) as a distraction from a much smaller number of forged votes and process comments, on the VfDs they do care about.

Tnx in any case for cooperatively writing me about it.

--Jerzy~t 23:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your failure even now to just fix the result in a way that includes a kosher sig. What the hell are you talking about? I went back to the page where you were forging my signature and did correct it. Rick K 23:37, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

STOP striking out my signature. Rick K 22:53, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please stay in touch once you've done your due diligence. I know exactly what you're tralking about, and had considered using it to strengthen the case i make above.

--Jerzy~t 23:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not allowed to log in from the computer that I use during the day. I have a logged in account at home, but the other account has been annotated with my real signature. It is not your responsibility to verify who I am. Knock it off. Rick K 23:37, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you didn't trigger my "new messages" notice, as the top of this page suggests; i didn't intend, busy tho i've been, to be this slow in reponding; i was far enough behind on my watchlist, with urgent things going on that couldn't be done responsibly without research, that i only refreshed it nearly 2 hours after you'd responded, and found that you had done so over 2 hours after. We all have our constraints.

I would do us both a disservice if i turned my attention to what you've writ, rather than what you didn't, so bear with me.

Your intemperate and dismissive language would not be justified if i had done what you say i did. And i'm no longer talking about whether i forged your sig, or remedied the forgery you committed by confusingly representing the picture the history (the only reasonable means of authentication) the would show.

You accused me of twice interfering with what you wanted at the end of that contrib. Compounding that, you did so without civility, and repeated the accusation in much more public forum than a user talk page, again without civility. You also didn't have the combination of sense and decency that would have led you to ask a question when i said something you obviously can't grasp.

Perhaps you just have never bothered to learn the meaning of the now well-known phrase "due diligence". It means that in order to do certain things, one is obligated to inform themself in corresponding relevant areas. I had thought you might welcome the "constructive ambiguity" that leaves people in a better position to hint their way thru negotiations. A blunt way of putting our situation is that you owe me an apology for your bad behavior that you led yourself into by your negligence. That is not my way of putting it, least of all bcz IMO "apology" is a word that invites on the one hand wounded dignity and on the other sweet lies. You know my preferred way of putting it, and my fallback position is this: you blew it, and wronged me. You owe me redress, and rather than slap you around with my impulse about what redress would be appropriate, i am interested in what you thing is called for.

But you should have known more before you falsely accused me, and IMO it is reasonable for you to do your due diligence now. What i did and didn't is a matter of fact and record. Acquaint yourself with the facts, as you should have done before speaking (and perhaps should have already done since), and then let's talk.

--Jerzy~t 02:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my fault if your ridiculous talk page setup doesn't trigger the new messages. I'm not going to jump through hoops for you. I will give you final warning -- don't delete my signature again, or I will file an RfC on you. I have no idea what you're talking about, I have not wronged you in the least. YOU specifically said you had struck out my signature, and I requested once that you not do so. You did it again, and I demanded that you stop. I will not speak on this again. Rick K 18:57, May 10, 2005 (UTC)