| Revision as of 20:33, 23 February 2008 editSwatjester (talk | contribs)Administrators27,528 edits →Thanks for your efforts← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:10, 24 February 2008 edit undo68.55.219.186 (talk) →Matt Sanchez pictureNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| Thank you. ]] ] 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | Thank you. ]] ] 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Swatt: the "bad faith" comes from editors who are on a crusade to discredit anything I say, do, write, etc... That photo of me in the helicopter was taken by me. The editors you've interacted with have not only persistently shown bias and bad faith, but also a heinous disregard for editorial standards. These are not "reasonable" "neutral" people and the editing on the article ] needs some oversite. Matt Sanchez | |||
| == Thanks for your efforts == | == Thanks for your efforts == | ||
Revision as of 14:10, 24 February 2008
Φ
Thanks
Thank you for granting me the rollback feature. LessThanClippers (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maxim beat me to it. Thank him. ⇒SWATJester 19:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Milhist coordinators election has started
- The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Mistaken
I've never done an unblock review, so it would probably be impossible for me to have an ongoing series of inappropriate unblock reviews. Which means that I am not bullying blocked users, because I have never engaged in declining a review. You can feel free to remove that accusation from my talk page at any time. It's baseless. the_undertow 04:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Correction: It was the block log message. It's therefore even MORE inappropriate. ⇒SWATJester 18:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- How is that more appropriate? How was I bullying blocked users? I blocked them according to policy. Bullying implies I was abusing them in some way. And a history? FOUR block summaries were posted on my talk page - three deserved, especially the guy who said he was going to rape and kill some woman. But maybe I hurt his feelings by calling him a waste of carbon. the_undertow 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- You blocked them according to policy. But policy never EVER gives you the right to personally attack another user by referring to him as a waste of carbon, even if he is one. How can you not understand that? You don't make tasteless jokes in block messages. It's the very definition of biting and incivility. Not to mention blatantly unprofessional. ⇒SWATJester 18:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
SPR
Thanks for the protect. This article always gets hit hard during school vacations.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Matt Sanchez picture
If the assertion of bad faith is warranted by relevant and strong evidence, I don't think it's an assumption. But I won't continue to revert - I don't have a strong opinion on the issue. Kalkin (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. ⇒SWATJester 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Swatt: the "bad faith" comes from editors who are on a crusade to discredit anything I say, do, write, etc... That photo of me in the helicopter was taken by me. The editors you've interacted with have not only persistently shown bias and bad faith, but also a heinous disregard for editorial standards. These are not "reasonable" "neutral" people and the editing on the article Matt Sanchez needs some oversite. Matt Sanchez
Thanks for your efforts
Thank you for your edits in Supreme Court of the United States on the judicial usurpation/activism section. Glad to know it was not just me. Magidin (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. The fun part is seeing how far that extends in other sections. ⇒SWATJester 20:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)