296
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 101:
Line 101: + +
no edit summary
::For meddling in a quarrel that was not yours, and expressing your own contempt of an administrator in the process. And you're doing it all over again. Stop it right now, or get blocked for three days.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 22:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::For meddling in a quarrel that was not yours, and expressing your own contempt of an administrator in the process. And you're doing it all over again. Stop it right now, or get blocked for three days.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 22:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I see no reason why I shouldn't work to correct an inaccuracy where a discussion is actively held (such as a Talk: page, whether for a user or article). I never expressed contempt for you - I said you might want to apologize (for threatening to block him over the fact that he said you were incorrect, when you were), but I never implied that you had to. The most contempt I ever showed you was when I accidentally quoted the paraphrase of what you said instead of what you actually said (because I was distracted at the time), and I corrected that and apologized. I don't see anything that I should apologize over, which is why I asked why I should apologize, and that's hardly contempt. But since this isn't an apology, I suspect you will block me (and that's not contempt either). [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:09, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
All I did was try and explain who David Hicks is.
All I did was try and explain who David Hicks is.