| Revision as of 04:08, 7 January 2008 editNoCal100 (talk | contribs)2,643 edits →Your username← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:18, 10 April 2008 edit undoRandomXYZb (talk | contribs)15,343 edits Your usernameNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ::Really? I'm sorry you feel that way, and if your edits entirely coincidental then I happily apologise. However, of the four edits you have made under a registered username (I'm not counting your response above and your insertion your userboxes on your userpage) two are to ] reinserting an inappropriate link removed (correctly, I believe) by Calton, and the other two are to ] where, without discussion, you have twice reverted Calton's amendments back to MegaMom's. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | ::Really? I'm sorry you feel that way, and if your edits entirely coincidental then I happily apologise. However, of the four edits you have made under a registered username (I'm not counting your response above and your insertion your userboxes on your userpage) two are to ] reinserting an inappropriate link removed (correctly, I believe) by Calton, and the other two are to ] where, without discussion, you have twice reverted Calton's amendments back to MegaMom's. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::I accept your apology. Happy editing. ] (]) 04:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | :::I accept your apology. Happy editing. ] (]) 04:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==Edit warring at ] (oh, and your username, while I'm here)== | |||
| Please stop edit warring at the above page.<br> | |||
| While I'm here, I should point out that my apology above was conditional - "if your edits are entirely coincidental then I happily apologise". You added your "Northern California" userbox after my comment, and after your first edits at ], ], ] - all of which were edit warring with ]. In the case of ] in particular, you're merely continuing another edit war over Croppy the Puletide Duck that a number of other editors and IPs have been involved in with Calton over the months.<br> | |||
| Oh, and something struck me that I should have realised earlier. 100 = "ton" (to quote from ] - "In Britain, ton is colloquially used to refer to 100 of a given unit"). Given "NoCal100" = "NoCalton" and your stalking behaviour, I'm inclined to think I've got enough evidence to the contrary not to assume good faith. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:18, 10 April 2008
January 2008
Your recent edit to User:Sellick666 (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Your username
I wonder if your username, when taken in conjunction with the fact that the only three edits you have made are reverting (directly or indirectly) edits by User:Calton is in breach of the username policy, as it is not a huge leap to read it as being aimed at that user. Is this the case? Giles Bennett 12:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- No. NoCal is short for Northern California, where I hail from. Reading your above comment as well as the one you left on the administrator's noticeboard leads me to believe you are not assuming good faith. NoCal100 (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Really? I'm sorry you feel that way, and if your edits entirely coincidental then I happily apologise. However, of the four edits you have made under a registered username (I'm not counting your response above and your insertion your userboxes on your userpage) two are to Kate Mulgrew reinserting an inappropriate link removed (correctly, I believe) by Calton, and the other two are to User:Sellick666 where, without discussion, you have twice reverted Calton's amendments back to MegaMom's. Giles Bennett 09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I accept your apology. Happy editing. NoCal100 (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Really? I'm sorry you feel that way, and if your edits entirely coincidental then I happily apologise. However, of the four edits you have made under a registered username (I'm not counting your response above and your insertion your userboxes on your userpage) two are to Kate Mulgrew reinserting an inappropriate link removed (correctly, I believe) by Calton, and the other two are to User:Sellick666 where, without discussion, you have twice reverted Calton's amendments back to MegaMom's. Giles Bennett 09:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit warring at List of fictional ducks (oh, and your username, while I'm here)
Please stop edit warring at the above page.
While I'm here, I should point out that my apology above was conditional - "if your edits are entirely coincidental then I happily apologise". You added your "Northern California" userbox after my comment, and after your first edits at List of fictional ducks, User:Sellick666, Kate Mulgrew - all of which were edit warring with User:Calton. In the case of List of fictional ducks in particular, you're merely continuing another edit war over Croppy the Puletide Duck that a number of other editors and IPs have been involved in with Calton over the months.
Oh, and something struck me that I should have realised earlier. 100 = "ton" (to quote from Ton - "In Britain, ton is colloquially used to refer to 100 of a given unit"). Given "NoCal100" = "NoCalton" and your stalking behaviour, I'm inclined to think I've got enough evidence to the contrary not to assume good faith. GB 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)