| Revision as of 20:00, 11 November 2006 editTobias Conradi (talk | contribs)37,615 editsNo edit summary | Latest revision as of 21:44, 16 November 2006 edit undoSyntaxError55 (talk | contribs)2,997 edits →Wikiproject Admin Right Abuse | ||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| since my talk page got protected by abusive admin User:Nandesuka you can post to User_talk:Tobias Conradi/freetalk - unfortunatly I will not see additions that fast. | :links ] | ||
| since my talk page got protected by abusive <s>and lying</s> admin User:Nandesuka you can post to ] - unfortunatly I will not see additions that fast. | |||
| == Getting your talk page unprotected == | |||
| All you need to do to have your talk page unprotected is to promise to leave the warning I gave you in place. It's entirely within your control. Kind regards, ] 20:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You are abusing your admin rights. I am not making any kind of deal with you. I don't want to support corruption. ] ] 20:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Excuse me, I'm going to stand up for ], it is under your control. Please make a deal and stop trolling. Thank you, --] 20:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikiproject Admin Right Abuse == | |||
| This Wikiproject was deemed useless by me, and then an admin agreed. This is a normal process. Thanks. --] 20:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Sir (or madam), I did not realise you were a ] so I thought it would be ok to move the discussion to your talk page. --] 20:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Vandal? As much as I think Tobias might have been a bit stubborn with ], I ''don't'' think he's a vandal, and I'm disappointed that people rushed to call him one. Vandals want to destroy articles and talk pages; I don't think that's Tobias' intent. This entire ruckus seems to be caused by the edit war at that article, where he initially wanted to add something he thought was useful. I admit I'm not an expert at the English Misplaced Pages's policies, but it seems like his block is an overreaction. – ] <small>(], ])</small> 02:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do think he's a vandal. A stubborn one at that. One look at his proves it. --] 06:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, it really doesn't. Only intentional efforts to harm / disrupt the encyclopedia are considered 'vandalism', and I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with anything Tobias Conradi has done which comes close to that. Also, for the record, some admins block for calling people vandals when they haven't committed any vandalism. -] 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ok, maybe I have my definition of 'vandalism' wrong, but, to avoid further dispute with this user I'm simply going to not interfere with his/her edits in the future. --] 21:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:44, 16 November 2006
- links User:Tobias Conradi
since my talk page got protected by abusive and lying admin User:Nandesuka you can post to User_talk:Tobias Conradi/freetalk - unfortunatly I will not see additions that fast.
Getting your talk page unprotected
All you need to do to have your talk page unprotected is to promise to leave the warning I gave you in place. It's entirely within your control. Kind regards, Nandesuka 20:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- You are abusing your admin rights. I am not making any kind of deal with you. I don't want to support corruption. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Excuse me, I'm going to stand up for Nandesuka, it is under your control. Please make a deal and stop trolling. Thank you, --SonicChao 20:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikiproject Admin Right Abuse
This Wikiproject was deemed useless by me, and then an admin agreed. This is a normal process. Thanks. --SonicChao 20:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sir (or madam), I did not realise you were a vandal so I thought it would be ok to move the discussion to your talk page. --SonicChao 20:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Vandal? As much as I think Tobias might have been a bit stubborn with ISO 15924, I don't think he's a vandal, and I'm disappointed that people rushed to call him one. Vandals want to destroy articles and talk pages; I don't think that's Tobias' intent. This entire ruckus seems to be caused by the edit war at that article, where he initially wanted to add something he thought was useful. I admit I'm not an expert at the English Misplaced Pages's policies, but it seems like his block is an overreaction. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I do think he's a vandal. A stubborn one at that. One look at his block log proves it. --SonicChao 06:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, it really doesn't. Only intentional efforts to harm / disrupt the encyclopedia are considered 'vandalism', and I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with anything Tobias Conradi has done which comes close to that. Also, for the record, some admins block for calling people vandals when they haven't committed any vandalism. -CBD 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, maybe I have my definition of 'vandalism' wrong, but, to avoid further dispute with this user I'm simply going to not interfere with his/her edits in the future. --SonicChao 21:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, it really doesn't. Only intentional efforts to harm / disrupt the encyclopedia are considered 'vandalism', and I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with anything Tobias Conradi has done which comes close to that. Also, for the record, some admins block for calling people vandals when they haven't committed any vandalism. -CBD 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I do think he's a vandal. A stubborn one at that. One look at his block log proves it. --SonicChao 06:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Vandal? As much as I think Tobias might have been a bit stubborn with ISO 15924, I don't think he's a vandal, and I'm disappointed that people rushed to call him one. Vandals want to destroy articles and talk pages; I don't think that's Tobias' intent. This entire ruckus seems to be caused by the edit war at that article, where he initially wanted to add something he thought was useful. I admit I'm not an expert at the English Misplaced Pages's policies, but it seems like his block is an overreaction. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 02:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)