| Revision as of 07:12, 11 January 2006 editEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,782 editsm Reverted edits by SEWilco (talk)(block) to last version by Jguk← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:37, 23 January 2006 edit undoCDThieme (talk | contribs)1,414 edits I am not one of those save everything for posterity people--if anyone is interested in the past, let him look at the historyNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Vandalism? == | |||
| Just about everything I do that CDThieme calls "vandalism" I regard as the repair of acts of vandalism that are enthusiastically supported by CDThieme.The rest is stylesheet minutiae.The arbitrators were inclined to rule against me on the latter (Babajobu volunteered to degrade my punctuation to the popular standard to forestall penalties) but made absolutely no threat of sanctions on the article-fork issues.Thus,the vandal-threat templates are more appropriately directed against Thieme than against me.--Louis E./le@put.com/] 20:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Blanking Your Talk Page == | |||
| Pruning your talk page is understandable. However, blanking the entire thing looks suspect. On December 9, you removed ; new, old, and ones you hadn't even addressed. This move doesn't seem to be in good faith. Do you have a good reason for doing this? --] 20:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :It's CDThieme's userspace, he can do with it pretty much whatever he sees fit. Your faux naif concern expressed here comes across as an oblique personal attack and simple badgering. Better for you to limit your concern to activity on articles and not the userspace pages of those you've had content disputes with. ] 06:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're barking up the wrong tree. According to administrator Duncharris - "Most people move their user talk pages to a subpage" e.g. ] "so older discussions are kept properly. Then break out a new talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:CDThieme&redirect=no . "It's not too important, just a little bit of wikiquette since some might take your intentions the wrong way if you delete passages." | |||
| ::Whether you admit it or not, it looks awfully fishy when someone blanks the entire talk page without replying to people. Generally, the user page is for that sort of thing and the talk page is for people to post messages and have them at least stay for awhile; hopefully with a reply.--] 06:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Says the guy who regularly deletes material from his talk page. ] 14:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I generally let them stay for a bit, respond to them, then delete them. --] 20:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Numerous Spelling Errors== | |||
| I am curious how many errors have been found in the skeptic's bible, by a VERIFIABLE SOURCE, and how it compares to other publiushed works. Please post your findings on the skeptic bible discussion page. | |||
| ] 19:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Please cut the crap. I know what a text riddled with mechanical errors looks like when I see it. I could not be further from Jason ideologically, but he's right on this one. ] 21:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| If seeking to verfiy a claim is crap, then I am full of it! | |||
| ] 21:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You have been blocked for 24 hours for a violation of the ] on ]. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. ] 17:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I've unblocked you and requested protection of the disputed artcles. I unblocked you so that you could participate in the discussions - please do. ] 17:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm blocking you for violating the 3RR, and for more reverts on other articles besides that. I prefer to block rather than protect (I realize you were just unblocked) because blocking targets the offenders, while protection hurts all of our editors. I was responding to the protection request and thought this was a better solution. ''Please'' do not use revert warring again, but discussion, or if that gets nowhere, ]. ]·] 18:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==False accusations of vandalism== | |||
| Hi, CDThieme. I notice you have again accused Louis Epstein of vandalism, this time in respect to his edits to ]. CDThieme, I encourage you to review ]. Even if you think his edits in that case were factually inaccurate, they do not constitute vandalism. Please do not accuse other editors of "vandalism" in the context of a content or formatting disagreement. Thanks. ] 11:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Just to let you know that I am asking ArbCom to apply any sanction they have against Sortan to you as well, on the grounds that I believe the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Sortan is an account you use. If you would like to comment or add evidence, the relevant pages are ] and ], ] 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC) | |||