User talk:Irishpunktom: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:46, 16 March 2006 editBhadani (talk \| contribs)204,742 edits →[]: thanks← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:50, 16 March 2006 edit undoJersey Devil (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users10,830 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 24:		Line 24:
	Please see my reply here:<br> http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bhadani#Samarkand_manuscript. --] 16:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)		Please see my reply here:<br> http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bhadani#Samarkand_manuscript. --] 16:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
	::I also thank you for your interest in the matter. --] 16:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)		::I also thank you for your interest in the matter. --] 16:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

			==]==
			Considering that you brought that up in one of the afds I put up, I just want to say that I challenge that. All of those articles that I put up for afd do qualify the criteria for deletion and I would like to know why you think they didn't (did random family trees with no sourced to meet ] deserve to be on Misplaced Pages?). I would also like to know if you think the following qualifies as ] (or is Striver above Misplaced Pages policy?), and if it does not I would like to know why in my talk page.

			:''wtf, why not including this as well:
			* ]
			*]
			*]
			*]
			*]

			Lets vote on all of them, why only the Muslim lists? --] 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)'' (])

			And he went through with it as well by putting up Afds for all those articles out of revenge for them putting an afd on his article and without even putting afd on the page history.

			*
			*
			*
			*
			*

			When the contibutors to this pages saw what he was doing they went to take off the afd tags that he put up to make a point and he reverted it and again put '''Rv Vandalism''' on the edit history.

			*
			*
			*
			*
			*--] 20:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:50, 16 March 2006

Old Stuff

IP

That would be my ip (the signature's to follow)... please be aware of my report and commentary on Irishpunktom's 3RR violation. CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 00:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi anon. I would stop using the IP if you are blocked for a 3rr or it may get you a larger one. --a.n.o.n.y.m 00:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Anon... editor, please call me Bill or CA-Bill. As I have no blocks I intend to continue using this IP. CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is found out that you are an editor who was blocked for 3rr then that won't be good for you at all. --a.n.o.n.y.m 01:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, I have blocked you for violating the 3rr rule. Please sort this out when you come back. --a.n.o.n.y.m 01:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Anon Editor for doing the right thing when admin User:William_M._Connolley shirked his responsibility. CA-Bill 208.201.242.19 01:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Irishpunktom's was not a complete 3rr but I have done this to be fair. --a.n.o.n.y.m 01:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI I'm the one

that posted the original diff's. The anon only re-posted it after william broke blocking policy and ignored it. Seraphim 00:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Your point about the content doesn't matter. 3rr only counts reverts, it doesn't deal with content issues. You might have a very valid point as far as the content goes, but you still broke the 3rr. Seraphim 00:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: POV pushing

I realize that there may be some unfairness in such a comment, if one is not prepared to further engage in explanations, debates and arguments to support it. However, in the light of some of the protracted, and repetitive arguments that I have seen you engage in, I must admit... I can't be bothered. Sorry. 11:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not what I wrote. Varga Mila 12:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I simply neither have the time nor desire to get into such discussions, providing many a link and wordy explanations. My last words on this matter.Varga Mila 12:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Adab

Please see my reply here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bhadani#Samarkand_manuscript. --Bhadani 16:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I also thank you for your interest in the matter. --Bhadani 16:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Considering that you brought that up in one of the afds I put up, I just want to say that I challenge that. All of those articles that I put up for afd do qualify the criteria for deletion and I would like to know why you think they didn't (did random family trees with no sourced to meet WP:V deserve to be on Misplaced Pages?). I would also like to know if you think the following qualifies as WP:POINT (or is Striver above Misplaced Pages policy?), and if it does not I would like to know why in my talk page.

wtf, why not including this as well:

Lets vote on all of them, why only the Muslim lists? --Striver 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (For quote see AFD for Muslim Athletes)

And he went through with it as well by putting up Afds for all those articles out of revenge for them putting an afd on his article and without even putting afd on the page history.

When the contibutors to this pages saw what he was doing they went to take off the afd tags that he put up to make a point and he reverted it and again put Rv Vandalism on the edit history.