User talk:SGGH: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:50, 14 May 2010 editSGGH (talk \| contribs)49,689 edits argh← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:33, 15 May 2010 edit undo95.89.18.134 (talk) →GK (GK1973; Miskin?)Next edit →
Line 55:		Line 55:
	The editor GK removed another Draganparis’ civility appeal edit in spite of your warning. Is he mocking at you now? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		The editor GK removed another Draganparis’ civility appeal edit in spite of your warning. Is he mocking at you now? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::And what ever happened to ignoring and moving on? You don't seem to be able to leave well enough alone either, you had to ''put'' the comment there in order for it to be removed. I'm tired of the two of you bandying my name around as a weapon for your soapbox battleground. ''Ignore'' each other, removing the article from your watchlist, and stop following each other around. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)		::And what ever happened to ignoring and moving on? You don't seem to be able to leave well enough alone either, you had to ''put'' the comment there in order for it to be removed. I'm tired of the two of you bandying my name around as a weapon for your soapbox battleground. ''Ignore'' each other, removing the article from your watchlist, and stop following each other around. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


			There is an amusing argument here. Please do not take it personally. I do not believe it, but it appears, I am afraid, from what you say that in your eyes calling for some decency may be inadequate. At least you imply that it is definitely worst then calling somebody a liar. Is it really so? Consider the following.

			1. One editor says that I am laying (about what? is not clear; I am even not editing these pages any more),

			2. you, who, I assume, supervises the page, do not react,

			3. I write a short note and declare that to say to me that I am lying is primitive. This expression can not be contested: the educated people would say in similar (but more adequate) circumstances that somebody is "not saying the truth".

			4. yet the other editor (to whom you - I presume - in the past passively permitted to insult me and who was removing parts of my edits when he wanted to ruin the decency of my edits - you discovered this and I appreciate this) removes these edits now,

			5. I finally complain TO YOU at your talk page and not on that particular page - to avoid conflicts

			What you do then?

			6. You are warning only me?!

			I would be interested to know what kind of moral law you think you are applying here, please? I suggest that you start warning the party which breaches moral rules and not the party which is offended by these breaches. This would be better practical rule to follow. (Draganparis)

Revision as of 13:33, 15 May 2010

Master Editor

This user is an administrator (verify). This user also maintains a metawiki account here and a commons account here.

Archives

Below are my pre-Cluebot III archives.

Please do not edit these archives, instead leave a message on the current talk page.

Thanks!

Oct '06-Dec '06
December '06-Jan '07
Jan '07-March '07
March '07-May '07
May '07-June '07
June '07-August '07
August '07-September '07
September '07-November '07
November '07-January '08
January '08-February '08
February '08-April '08
April '08-May '08
May '08-August '08
August '08-April '09

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Welcome to my talk page, please leave any messages below. If you have queries or concerns regarding my wiki-work or admin-work, then please leave calm and polite messages and I will address the problem as soon as possible. I used to have a policy regarding where I responded (your talk or mine) but it got too confusing. You might want to keep half an eye on the moon in case my reply ends up there! Many thanks.

Please also note, I type very fast, and often in a hurry so I don't always have time to spellcheck, please forgive my spelling if I slip up!

Contents

DYK for Clydesdale Bank 40

On May 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clydesdale Bank 40, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you revisit this issue?

User talk:Hm2k and his reply to your nicely worded warning. He also reverted your change. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

98.204.183.125

You blocked IP editor 98.204.183.125 in March for one month for racist contributions and vandalism (ANI case here). The editor is back, editing the same article, inserting the same racist material. They've been brought up at AN/I four times before (1, 2, 3 4), blocked four times in the last year, and warned on their talk page over a dozen times. Think it might be possible to just perma-ban the static IP editor? ← George

GK (GK1973; Miskin?)

The editor GK removed another Draganparis’ civility appeal edit in spite of your warning. Is he mocking at you now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.18.134 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

And what ever happened to ignoring and moving on? You don't seem to be able to leave well enough alone either, you had to put the comment there in order for it to be removed. I'm tired of the two of you bandying my name around as a weapon for your soapbox battleground. Ignore each other, removing the article from your watchlist, and stop following each other around. SGGH 17:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an amusing argument here. Please do not take it personally. I do not believe it, but it appears, I am afraid, from what you say that in your eyes calling for some decency may be inadequate. At least you imply that it is definitely worst then calling somebody a liar. Is it really so? Consider the following.

1. One editor says that I am laying (about what? is not clear; I am even not editing these pages any more),

2. you, who, I assume, supervises the page, do not react,

3. I write a short note and declare that to say to me that I am lying is primitive. This expression can not be contested: the educated people would say in similar (but more adequate) circumstances that somebody is "not saying the truth".

4. yet the other editor (to whom you - I presume - in the past passively permitted to insult me and who was removing parts of my edits when he wanted to ruin the decency of my edits - you discovered this and I appreciate this) removes these edits now,

5. I finally complain TO YOU at your talk page and not on that particular page - to avoid conflicts

What you do then?

6. You are warning only me?!

I would be interested to know what kind of moral law you think you are applying here, please? I suggest that you start warning the party which breaches moral rules and not the party which is offended by these breaches. This would be better practical rule to follow. (Draganparis)