User talk:193.219.28.146 - Revision history

BD2412bot: /* top */IP talk page template fix., replaced: {{OW}} → {{Blanked IP talk}}

2022-08-08T01:17:02Z

top: IP talk page template fix., replaced: {{OW}} → {{Blanked IP talk}}

← Previous revision		Revision as of 01:17, 8 August 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{OW}}		{{Blanked IP talk}}

Nythar: Blanking ancient IP talk page

2022-08-07T01:27:39Z

Blanking ancient IP talk page

← Previous revision	Revision as of 01:27, 7 August 2022
Line 1:	Line 1:
		{{OW}}

BD2412: blank ancient IP talk page messages per Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 9#IP talk pages using AWB

2009-12-23T16:51:46Z

blank ancient IP talk page messages per Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 9#IP talk pages using AWB

Show changes

Veinor: Revert to revision 105141916 dated 2007-02-02 18:16:46 by Localzuk using popups

2007-04-24T13:48:22Z

Revert to revision 105141916 dated 2007-02-02 18:16:46 by Localzuk using popups

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:48, 24 April 2007
Line 235:		Line 235:
	:::Well, I could ask other editors why are they so obsessed with removing my polite comment... BTW -- I think that you're strict formalist in this case... Why? You're able to accept behaviour in "real life" that is even against the law (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Britches_%28monkey%29&diff=prev&oldid=42462782)... "people who removed Britches believed they had the right to do so in order to prevent an extreme level of cruelty". Well, and I believe that my comment was removed from the '''talk page''' with violation of basic Misplaced Pages rules and policies and I have right to re-add it again... ] 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)		:::Well, I could ask other editors why are they so obsessed with removing my polite comment... BTW -- I think that you're strict formalist in this case... Why? You're able to accept behaviour in "real life" that is even against the law (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Britches_%28monkey%29&diff=prev&oldid=42462782)... "people who removed Britches believed they had the right to do so in order to prevent an extreme level of cruelty". Well, and I believe that my comment was removed from the '''talk page''' with violation of basic Misplaced Pages rules and policies and I have right to re-add it again... ] 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::Please leave my personal views, regardless of how relevant you think they are, out of this. The issue still remains that you have not explained how you think your comment is helpful. You have not looked at my comments above and you are still responding with the same response regardless of questions or reasoning given to you.-]<sup>]</sup> 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)		::::Please leave my personal views, regardless of how relevant you think they are, out of this. The issue still remains that you have not explained how you think your comment is helpful. You have not looked at my comments above and you are still responding with the same response regardless of questions or reasoning given to you.-]<sup>]</sup> 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

	== Oh la la ==

	I love the fishes because their so delicious. Gotta go fishing. Gotta go fishing. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 13:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

HagermanBot: JJAshfiel didn't sign: "Oh la la"

2007-04-24T13:28:56Z

JJAshfiel didn't sign: "Oh la la"

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:28, 24 April 2007
Line 238:		Line 238:
	== Oh la la ==		== Oh la la ==

	I love the fishes because their so delicious. Gotta go fishing. Gotta go fishing.		I love the fishes because their so delicious. Gotta go fishing. Gotta go fishing. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 13:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

JJAshfiel: Oh la la

2007-04-24T13:28:50Z

Oh la la

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:28, 24 April 2007
Line 235:		Line 235:
	:::Well, I could ask other editors why are they so obsessed with removing my polite comment... BTW -- I think that you're strict formalist in this case... Why? You're able to accept behaviour in "real life" that is even against the law (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Britches_%28monkey%29&diff=prev&oldid=42462782)... "people who removed Britches believed they had the right to do so in order to prevent an extreme level of cruelty". Well, and I believe that my comment was removed from the '''talk page''' with violation of basic Misplaced Pages rules and policies and I have right to re-add it again... ] 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)		:::Well, I could ask other editors why are they so obsessed with removing my polite comment... BTW -- I think that you're strict formalist in this case... Why? You're able to accept behaviour in "real life" that is even against the law (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Britches_%28monkey%29&diff=prev&oldid=42462782)... "people who removed Britches believed they had the right to do so in order to prevent an extreme level of cruelty". Well, and I believe that my comment was removed from the '''talk page''' with violation of basic Misplaced Pages rules and policies and I have right to re-add it again... ] 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	::::Please leave my personal views, regardless of how relevant you think they are, out of this. The issue still remains that you have not explained how you think your comment is helpful. You have not looked at my comments above and you are still responding with the same response regardless of questions or reasoning given to you.-]<sup>]</sup> 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)		::::Please leave my personal views, regardless of how relevant you think they are, out of this. The issue still remains that you have not explained how you think your comment is helpful. You have not looked at my comments above and you are still responding with the same response regardless of questions or reasoning given to you.-]<sup>]</sup> 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

			== Oh la la ==

			I love the fishes because their so delicious. Gotta go fishing. Gotta go fishing.

Localzuk: /* At it again */ response

2007-02-02T18:16:46Z

At it again: response

← Previous revision		Revision as of 18:16, 2 February 2007
Line 234:		Line 234:
	::It is extremely disruptive because it ends up with various editors having to look into this instead of actually editing the site, and it leads to ] posts which waste more time. Why are you so obsessed with adding the comment?-]<sup>]</sup> 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)		::It is extremely disruptive because it ends up with various editors having to look into this instead of actually editing the site, and it leads to ] posts which waste more time. Why are you so obsessed with adding the comment?-]<sup>]</sup> 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::Well, I could ask other editors why are they so obsessed with removing my polite comment... BTW -- I think that you're strict formalist in this case... Why? You're able to accept behaviour in "real life" that is even against the law (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Britches_%28monkey%29&diff=prev&oldid=42462782)... "people who removed Britches believed they had the right to do so in order to prevent an extreme level of cruelty". Well, and I believe that my comment was removed from the '''talk page''' with violation of basic Misplaced Pages rules and policies and I have right to re-add it again... ] 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)		:::Well, I could ask other editors why are they so obsessed with removing my polite comment... BTW -- I think that you're strict formalist in this case... Why? You're able to accept behaviour in "real life" that is even against the law (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Britches_%28monkey%29&diff=prev&oldid=42462782)... "people who removed Britches believed they had the right to do so in order to prevent an extreme level of cruelty". Well, and I believe that my comment was removed from the '''talk page''' with violation of basic Misplaced Pages rules and policies and I have right to re-add it again... ] 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
			::::Please leave my personal views, regardless of how relevant you think they are, out of this. The issue still remains that you have not explained how you think your comment is helpful. You have not looked at my comments above and you are still responding with the same response regardless of questions or reasoning given to you.-]<sup>]</sup> 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

193.219.28.146: /* At it again */

2007-02-02T17:31:58Z

At it again

← Previous revision		Revision as of 17:31, 2 February 2007
Line 233:		Line 233:
	::I have read them and I have posted comments - which you have ignored. Your comments have simply been a repetition of a single line of ] and the fact that you will re-add it. I have given a long explanation as to why such comments are not helpful and it was ignored.		::I have read them and I have posted comments - which you have ignored. Your comments have simply been a repetition of a single line of ] and the fact that you will re-add it. I have given a long explanation as to why such comments are not helpful and it was ignored.
	::It is extremely disruptive because it ends up with various editors having to look into this instead of actually editing the site, and it leads to ] posts which waste more time. Why are you so obsessed with adding the comment?-]<sup>]</sup> 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)		::It is extremely disruptive because it ends up with various editors having to look into this instead of actually editing the site, and it leads to ] posts which waste more time. Why are you so obsessed with adding the comment?-]<sup>]</sup> 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
			:::Well, I could ask other editors why are they so obsessed with removing my polite comment... BTW -- I think that you're strict formalist in this case... Why? You're able to accept behaviour in "real life" that is even against the law (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Britches_%28monkey%29&diff=prev&oldid=42462782)... "people who removed Britches believed they had the right to do so in order to prevent an extreme level of cruelty". Well, and I believe that my comment was removed from the '''talk page''' with violation of basic Misplaced Pages rules and policies and I have right to re-add it again... ] 17:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Localzuk: /* At it again */ response

2007-02-02T17:10:56Z

At it again: response

← Previous revision		Revision as of 17:10, 2 February 2007
Line 231:		Line 231:
	You have been asked by multiple editors, multiple times not to post that comment. You have been blocked 3 times for posting it again and again. The general consensus on this issue is that you should not post it. Can you explain how ''rv per prior discussion on talk page of this IP'' is true then? Your behaviour is extremely ] now. Please stop. You still have not explained how your comment actually helps improve that article.-]<sup>]</sup> 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)		You have been asked by multiple editors, multiple times not to post that comment. You have been blocked 3 times for posting it again and again. The general consensus on this issue is that you should not post it. Can you explain how ''rv per prior discussion on talk page of this IP'' is true then? Your behaviour is extremely ] now. Please stop. You still have not explained how your comment actually helps improve that article.-]<sup>]</sup> 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
	:It is definitely NOT "extremely disruptive". You're exaggerating. I am bored with this discussion... Read my comments above. ] 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)		:It is definitely NOT "extremely disruptive". You're exaggerating. I am bored with this discussion... Read my comments above. ] 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
			::I have read them and I have posted comments - which you have ignored. Your comments have simply been a repetition of a single line of ] and the fact that you will re-add it. I have given a long explanation as to why such comments are not helpful and it was ignored.
			::It is extremely disruptive because it ends up with various editors having to look into this instead of actually editing the site, and it leads to ] posts which waste more time. Why are you so obsessed with adding the comment?-]<sup>]</sup> 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

193.219.28.146: /* At it again */ response

2007-02-02T17:01:32Z

At it again: response

← Previous revision		Revision as of 17:01, 2 February 2007
Line 230:		Line 230:
	==At it again==		==At it again==
	You have been asked by multiple editors, multiple times not to post that comment. You have been blocked 3 times for posting it again and again. The general consensus on this issue is that you should not post it. Can you explain how ''rv per prior discussion on talk page of this IP'' is true then? Your behaviour is extremely ] now. Please stop. You still have not explained how your comment actually helps improve that article.-]<sup>]</sup> 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)		You have been asked by multiple editors, multiple times not to post that comment. You have been blocked 3 times for posting it again and again. The general consensus on this issue is that you should not post it. Can you explain how ''rv per prior discussion on talk page of this IP'' is true then? Your behaviour is extremely ] now. Please stop. You still have not explained how your comment actually helps improve that article.-]<sup>]</sup> 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
			:It is definitely NOT "extremely disruptive". You're exaggerating. I am bored with this discussion... Read my comments above. ] 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)