| Revision as of 12:42, 16 February 2008 editTheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits →3RR← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:19, 16 February 2008 edit undoCredoFromStart (talk | contribs)Rollbackers1,203 edits →3RR: sorry!Next edit → | ||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
| ==3RR== | ==3RR== | ||
| This is a '''very''' casual warning, but you seem to be in violation of the ] on the ] article. I don't see any evidence of edit warring but you are definitely in violation of the letter of the law in this case. I'm not very vested in this article, but if I was very interested in the topic, and I disagreed with you, I would definitely have a case against you per policy. Just some food for thought! Thanks, ] <sup>]</sup> 06:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | <s>This is a '''very''' casual warning, but you seem to be in violation of the ] on the ] article. I don't see any evidence of edit warring but you are definitely in violation of the letter of the law in this case. I'm not very vested in this article, but if I was very interested in the topic, and I disagreed with you, I would definitely have a case against you per policy. Just some food for thought! Thanks, ] <sup>]</sup> 06:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)</s> | ||
| :I don't believe that reverting the vandalism of the banned disruptive account(s) ultrastoopid/___maroon would actually constitute a violation. But thank you. ] (]) 12:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | :I don't believe that reverting the vandalism of the banned disruptive account(s) ultrastoopid/___maroon would actually constitute a violation. But thank you. ] (]) 12:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :: You're quite correct, and I withdraw my previous statement. I didn't look very far into it and the lengthy edit summaries led me to think it was more content dispute than sockpuppet cleanup. My apologies! ] <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:19, 16 February 2008
edit count | edit summary usage.png)
The name TheRedPen was already taken, so I must perforce add to the moniker.
Welcome to Misplaced Pages!!!
|
Ahem
I suggest you not jump the gun and report anyone who disagrees with you as a vandal. Jtrainor 18:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- My dear young man, the fact that the admin missed the copyright issues amongst your edit war reverts, does not mean that it is not vandalism to remove copyright tags without addessing the issues.TheRedPenOfDoom 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Glock 37
I am too busy to do the research that I had wanted to, so I took tag down because i'm now creating fuss over nothing. - Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say...
...I missed that edit you floated on the talk page. All the back-and-forth, i just skipped right past it.
But it was quite good work. I agree that your edit is much better -- the same intent of the original wording but presented in a properly NPOV and concise way. Thanks/congratulations -- whichever you find more suitable. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Related?
I wondered for a moment if you were related to Giovanni given you both involve yourselves in others' discussions, but I'm sure you thought you were being helpful. But sometimes when users have a misunderstanding the worst thing another can do is wade in to the discussion. If Sky was upset/needed your support I'm sure he would have blanked my comments or ended the discussion, rather than suggest he'd talk to me later. John Smith's (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not to my knowledge. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply to your talkpage message:
- After he said that he was too busy to carry on the conversation, I offered for him to contact me at his leisure - I would have said the same had he done so earlier. I also didn't keep pushing the original question, rather tried to understand why he had reacted somewhat sharply. So I don't see that as provocation. John Smith's (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
edit
Hi there friend. Im here just to ask you to reconsider your reversion on the allegations page. If you look at the actual content, you will see that what you reverted actually leaves in UltraMarine's contentious additions that were added without consensus. His additions has several problems as discussed on the talk page. I know you were probably undoing the edit warring of that dupious (and now banned account), but despite this, the actual content now, in my view, degraded. Could you revert back to the status quo version while discussion continues? Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
3RR
This is a very casual warning, but you seem to be in violation of the 3-revert rule on the Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States article. I don't see any evidence of edit warring but you are definitely in violation of the letter of the law in this case. I'm not very vested in this article, but if I was very interested in the topic, and I disagreed with you, I would definitely have a case against you per policy. Just some food for thought! Thanks, CredoFromStart 06:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe that reverting the vandalism of the banned disruptive account(s) ultrastoopid/___maroon would actually constitute a violation. But thank you. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're quite correct, and I withdraw my previous statement. I didn't look very far into it and the lengthy edit summaries led me to think it was more content dispute than sockpuppet cleanup. My apologies! CredoFromStart 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)