| Revision as of 22:11, 9 February 2008 editNishkid64 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users51,999 edits →Reminder: Reply.← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:08, 10 February 2008 edit undo90.199.160.190 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| ::::Not that bit! The bit where you removed "As of 1968"! Do you even know what you're reverting? ] (]) 21:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | ::::Not that bit! The bit where you removed "As of 1968"! Do you even know what you're reverting? ] (]) 21:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Baka, pay attention to ] and ] on ]. Don't let your emotions get the best of you. Continue discussion on the talk page in a civil manner. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 22:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | :::::Baka, pay attention to ] and ] on ]. Don't let your emotions get the best of you. Continue discussion on the talk page in a civil manner. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 22:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==] - your rcenet edits == | |||
| Why do you want to repeatedly add this unsupported qualification >> "Many Muslim organizations, '''most of them accused of being fundamentalist in nature''', on the other hand strongly oppose the building of the temple. >> while you have removed negative references to Hindu extremists citing LIBEL in the same article? Courts are still deciding whether the Hindu claim or the Muslim claim over the mosque land is genuine, how can you dare to say that Kar Sevaks destroyed the ILLEGAL STRUCTURE of mosque on Ram Janmabhoomi - Man what are you doing - you are surely misrepresenting sources where if you ever cite them while you brazenly unshamedly put in your personal biases in articles?? ] (]) 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:08, 10 February 2008
|
|
| 1-2-3- 4-5-6-7-8-9 -10-11-12-13 -14-15-16-17-18-19 |
I give myself the authority to remove bogus warning templates from my page Bakaman Bakatalk 04:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Reminder
You've broken 3RR. You'll want to revert yourself. Relata refero (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC) a) I have not made 3 reverts in the last 24 hours b) The "reverts" arent reverts since the concerns have been addressed Bakaman 21:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- You've removed "as of 1968" four times in the past hour, to start off with. You might want to revert yourself - the concerns are far from being addressed. Relata refero (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your mathematics is incorrect, I have made 1 revert in the past hour, compared to your three. If you are trying to get me blocked, it will display that you are not editing the page for constructive reasons. The concerns you brought up on the talk page were addressed, and I have obviously improved the quality of the page in the last day.Bakaman 21:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bollocks. You've misrepresented sources, and removed text four times, and made no effort to appreciate concerns aired on the talkpage. I'm afraid that this will go to AN3 unless you demonstrate a concern for improving your behaviour by re-inserting the removed text. Relata refero (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Again, please revert yourself. I don't like reporting people. See also this. Relata refero (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not that bit! The bit where you removed "As of 1968"! Do you even know what you're reverting? Relata refero (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Baka, pay attention to WP:3RR and WP:CIVILITY on Talk:Criticism of Hinduism. Don't let your emotions get the best of you. Continue discussion on the talk page in a civil manner. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Not that bit! The bit where you removed "As of 1968"! Do you even know what you're reverting? Relata refero (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Again, please revert yourself. I don't like reporting people. See also this. Relata refero (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Bollocks. You've misrepresented sources, and removed text four times, and made no effort to appreciate concerns aired on the talkpage. I'm afraid that this will go to AN3 unless you demonstrate a concern for improving your behaviour by re-inserting the removed text. Relata refero (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ram Janmabhoomi - your rcenet edits
Why do you want to repeatedly add this unsupported qualification >> "Many Muslim organizations, most of them accused of being fundamentalist in nature, on the other hand strongly oppose the building of the temple. >> while you have removed negative references to Hindu extremists citing LIBEL here in the same article? Courts are still deciding whether the Hindu claim or the Muslim claim over the mosque land is genuine, how can you dare to say that Kar Sevaks destroyed the ILLEGAL STRUCTURE of mosque on Ram Janmabhoomi here - Man what are you doing - you are surely misrepresenting sources where if you ever cite them while you brazenly unshamedly put in your personal biases in articles?? 90.199.160.190 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)