| Revision as of 00:22, 6 May 2009 editBrownBot (talk | contribs)Bots76,066 edits The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:13, 7 May 2009 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 5d) to User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2009/May, User talk:Tanthalas39/Archives/2009/April.Next edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| *] | *] | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == ] == | |||
| The IP won't take the hint. He went right back to doing the same thing at 15:55 UTC . It looks like protection is needed for the duration of the block. ] ] 17:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Reblocked/protected for a week. ] | ] 17:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Your giving be warnings about making "retarded edits" could I have an example of one of my edits you consider retarded. Thanks get back to me (] (]) 21:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| :I didn't make that edit. Looking into it. ] | ] 21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I guess I did. I think a lot of your edits could be considered vandalism. stands out in particular. ] | ] 22:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| To be fair, was the standard wording without profanity or insults; it was the who added the colourful language. Agree with the warning; , advising someone to make up edits, is hardly promising... ]] 22:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. I was wondering if I was drunk or something - all is clear now. ] | ] 22:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Your comment at the admin board == | |||
| Please be honest in your answer: what would you do, having faced a tirade of wrongful accusations? Would you not at least '''try''' and defend yourself? ] (]) 18:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Probably not. I don't want to block you, but just... ''let it go''. The only sanctions that are going to happen is for your "fuck you, you, you, yer cool, fuck you" attitude that is being constantly displayed - and even then, it's only because you are ''flooding'' ANI with this issue. We all have better things to do, you included. I know some of the editors in that discussion can be insufferable; just let it go. ] | ] 18:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == DougsTech == | == DougsTech == | ||
| Line 48: | Line 30: | ||
| == The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009) == | == The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009) == | ||
| The ''']''' of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)</small> | The ''']''' of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.<br /><small>This has been an automated delivery by ] (]) 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)</small> | ||
Revision as of 16:13, 7 May 2009
Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
DougsTech
I don't understand why anyone paid attention to User:DougsTech's votes in the first place--but you really went overboard. The more I see administrators obsessed with DougsTech the more I want to vote: "Oppose too many administrators" on every RfA.
What is it about trolls on en.wiki that they can garner so much administrator attention? Is it that there are simply so many administrators that there is nothing else to do on en.wiki but engage the trolls?
If you really think he's a troll, ignore him, whether he goes away or not.
It's like listening to newsmen say that Paris Hilton hasn't done anything to earn fame--she's not discussing them. --KP Botany (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Failed Topic Ban
Now that your proposed topic ban has failed, I would suggest not adding your "Go away." response. Replying to the !votes creates the drama, not the !vote itself. --DougsTech (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- And your continued !vote will perpetually garner attention from people unfamiliar with your position - regardless of any caveats or people discouraging responses. Something to think about. Wisdom89 (T / ) 16:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)