| Revision as of 23:21, 8 November 2008 editFritzpoll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,706 editsm Reverted edits by 79.74.76.119 to last version by JNW (HG)← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:28, 8 November 2008 edit undo74.234.45.208 (talk) →Why don't you take your hypocrisy and shove it?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| ] is adding ban/block templates to userpages of users who have been banned/blocked, as far as I've been told, only admins may use those templates.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup> /<sub>]</sub>''' 20:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | ] is adding ban/block templates to userpages of users who have been banned/blocked, as far as I've been told, only admins may use those templates.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup> /<sub>]</sub>''' 20:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Not necessarily. I am watching the contribs though - thanks for pointing it out ] (]) 22:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | :Not necessarily. I am watching the contribs though - thanks for pointing it out ] (]) 22:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Why don't you take your hypocrisy and shove it? == | |||
| The three of you have accused me of "vandalism". Fine, that's your opinion, you can have it. But you cannot have your version of the facts Look at the comments that you three have left me: | |||
| ''When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page.'' | |||
| ''Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Poughkeepsie (city), New York. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing.'' | |||
| Your allegations are provably FALSE. I NEVER FUCKING ONCE MADE AN EDIT WITHOUT EXPLANATION OR SPECIFYING A REASON. What is more, I made this point twice, and you CONTINUED to ignore me. | |||
| Is it too much to ask that you follow your own fucking advice and leave edit summarys (not those automated things) and even more importantly, READ the edit summaries of those whom your accusing of vandalism? | |||
Revision as of 23:28, 8 November 2008
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 |
|---|
| 24 December 2024 |
|
Joseph Spiess Company Talk
I Did not vandelize the page in the Joseph Spiess talk article. I was just saying I added a picture. Geez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.88.17 (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.
Thanks for your honest support in my RFA!!
|
+Rollbacker
Done - per your request at WP:PERM. I was really impressed by your appropriate use of good faith vs. vandlism reversions, by the way. Remember to read and apply WP:ROLLBACK if you intend to use it directly. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your assistance. Eric-Wester (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Test Manager (General)
I reverted your revert on this one because it was blanked by the only person who had contributed any info in the article, ie: it was a good faith blanking by the article creator. I followed with a speedy request for the same article, under the assumption that since he blanked it, he wants it deleted. Just wanted to explain that. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- My bad - thanks for pointing this out Fritzpoll (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Idle question because I'm not sure but,
User:92.10.73.127 is adding ban/block templates to userpages of users who have been banned/blocked, as far as I've been told, only admins may use those templates.— Dædαlus /Improve 20:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. I am watching the contribs though - thanks for pointing it out Fritzpoll (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you take your hypocrisy and shove it?
The three of you have accused me of "vandalism". Fine, that's your opinion, you can have it. But you cannot have your version of the facts Look at the comments that you three have left me:
When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Poughkeepsie (city), New York. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing.
Your allegations are provably FALSE. I NEVER FUCKING ONCE MADE AN EDIT WITHOUT EXPLANATION OR SPECIFYING A REASON. What is more, I made this point twice, and you CONTINUED to ignore me.
Is it too much to ask that you follow your own fucking advice and leave edit summarys (not those automated things) and even more importantly, READ the edit summaries of those whom your accusing of vandalism?