| Revision as of 23:37, 4 March 2010 view sourceNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,176 edits →Thanks← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:41, 4 March 2010 view source Nableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,176 edits →ThanksNext edit → | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| '''Note:''' I'm glad you're all here. I advise you all not to return the comment by banned editor N-HH. We can discuss the matter of ban-evasion on if you insist. Warm regards, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC) | '''Note:''' I'm glad you're all here. I advise you all not to return the comment by banned editor N-HH. We can discuss the matter of ban-evasion on if you insist. Warm regards, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :Ha. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | :Ha. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | ||
| :Allow me to expand on that. If you feel that N-HH is in violation of his arbitration imposed topic ban, then by all means go to ] to request enforcement of that ban. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
Revision as of 23:41, 4 March 2010
Template:Archive box collapsible
Why the urgency to remove the Danny Silk/Kris Vallotton pages?
Hi, Sean. I'm just puzzled why the scramble to delete these two pages.RichLindvall (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: New Pages Related To Bethel Church
Hi, I'm new to Misplaced Pages, and am working on stubs for the following pages:
Bethel Church (Redding, California)
Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry
Kris Vallotton
I believe that the above three entries pass the test of notability.
Please check out the drafts for these at my User Subpages. Houseofisaac (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
whats cooking
do you have laying around somewhere the old version of the lead that the article had a few months ago instead of the current one? the para that explains the ceasefire?
it's funny that a ceasefire expires by refusing to renew it... Cryptonio (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- No but I see that you've found something. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- What do you think about this article. ] thanks in adavance. Cryptonio (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Muhammad al-Durrah incident
I didn't see the discussion re blood libel. Can you kindly link to it? Is it possible to search the Talk archives? A pejorative link to blood libel or "sensationalized human sacrifice" doesn't belong on that article which describes a crossfire incident. Soledad22 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- You can just text search for 'blood libel' on the article's talk page and you will find it. I've also added an archive search box. You will see that it's come up many times. I have no view on the issue. I reverted and suggested talking because edit wars on articles related to the Israel-Palestine conflict usually ends up with the article being locked because they are covered by sanctions. Please could you make your case on the article talk page and discuss it with Slim and the other editors rather than edit war it out. Thanks Sean.hoyland - talk 01:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
For restoring my comment at WQA btw. I'm not sure even an admin would care that much, would they? I mean it was a vague and general observation on a non-content noticeboard, in a thread about an edit summary Nableezy made on his own talk page, and also a jokey non-content comment he made on the talk page of an article that maybe happened to be an I-P page, but I can't even recall whether it was or not, or which one it might have been from here. I suspect only Jaakobou is bothered enough to play Six Degrees of Separation on this one. I've skirted close to the (daft, but oddly welcome) topic ban a couple of times in the past, but I don't see the problem here. A better argument against my having commented there would be that I added nothing of any real substance to the debate, other than to prolong it by three more edits. N-HH talk/edits 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I couldn't see a problem with you commenting either and your comment did provide an opportunity for others to enjoy the impressive POV pushing and baiting going on at Pan-Arabism. Also I didn't want Nableezy to revert it. It was partly for Jaakobou's own good as well. I think both of them have been asked to leave things to admins in the past although I might be imagining that. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- You mean you intentionally denied me the pleasure of reverting that edit? Sonofabitch. nableezy - 17:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I assumed you'd be busy working on alternative talk page phrasing techniques like 'shud the fud up muddyfunster' and such like. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Wont do it, cant let the terrorists win. nableezy - 18:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- I assumed you'd be busy working on alternative talk page phrasing techniques like 'shud the fud up muddyfunster' and such like. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- You mean you intentionally denied me the pleasure of reverting that edit? Sonofabitch. nableezy - 17:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: I'm glad you're all here. I advise you all not to return the comment by banned editor N-HH. We can discuss the matter of ban-evasion on my talk page if you insist. Warm regards, Jaakobou 23:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ha. nableezy - 23:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
- Allow me to expand on that. If you feel that N-HH is in violation of his arbitration imposed topic ban, then by all means go to arbitration enforcement to request enforcement of that ban. nableezy - 23:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)