Changes

no edit summary
Line 88: Line 88:  
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude.  Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy.  Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
 
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude.  Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy.  Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
 
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)
 
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)
 +
 +
== Block of SSchultz ==
 +
 +
It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause.  As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia.  Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
300

edits