| Revision as of 05:33, 21 October 2012 editFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,181 edits →Cla68 on AE: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:40, 22 October 2012 edit undoCla68 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits →Cla68 on AE: Arbcom requestNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| Sorry Mathsci, but in order to prevent the forest fire from spreading through yet more spin-off threads I've speedy-closed your latest posting on AE (and my recommendation would be that you might actually want to remove it.) While I can sort of understand your exasperation with Cla's behaviour, I don't think another thread on this matter is in anybody's interest. If sanctions against him really need to be considered, that should be perfectly possible in the original thread too. ] ] 05:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC) | Sorry Mathsci, but in order to prevent the forest fire from spreading through yet more spin-off threads I've speedy-closed your latest posting on AE (and my recommendation would be that you might actually want to remove it.) While I can sort of understand your exasperation with Cla's behaviour, I don't think another thread on this matter is in anybody's interest. If sanctions against him really need to be considered, that should be perfectly possible in the original thread too. ] ] 05:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ==You are named in an Arbcom request== | |||
| . ] (]) 23:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:40, 22 October 2012
 Archives |
|
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII |
Your comments
Hi, I just noticed your comments at AE. When we had our disagreement on the Marseille article you made some suggestions on the talk page, and we resolved it amicably. Could you consider doing the same thing for the Eysenck and R&I articles? When you disagree with someone's edits, I think you should try to resolve the disagreement on the article talk page before pushing for them to be sanctioned at a noticeboard. Zeromus1 (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Your account was looked at in private by a checkuser some time back. Your first edit is inexplicable as a new user: it is still inexplicable. You have now chosen to edit topics covered by arbitration sanctions and are not editing within the guidelines laid down by WP:ARBR&I. I did not find your edits to Marseille constructive: they occurred before you moved into topics at the heart of WP:ARBR&I. As you have given me no reason to indicate that you are a new user and in fact multiple signs to the contrary, I would prefer that you did not post on my talk page again. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Amenable group
Re : the number of editors who spam those tags in math articles is pretty vast. It's one of the reasons I seldom edit that area anymore. It's better to report those issues to WP:WPM. (Sometimes pointing the nuisance taggers to WP:SCICITE is enough; sometimes it's not.) Tijfo098 (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I will not be adding content to wikipedia for quite a while. In the case of amenable group, I followed the "style" pattern set by other contributors. Mathsci (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Cla68 on AE
Sorry Mathsci, but in order to prevent the forest fire from spreading through yet more spin-off threads I've speedy-closed your latest posting on AE (and my recommendation would be that you might actually want to remove it.) While I can sort of understand your exasperation with Cla's behaviour, I don't think another thread on this matter is in anybody's interest. If sanctions against him really need to be considered, that should be perfectly possible in the original thread too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)