| Revision as of 17:08, 16 August 2010 editIan.thomson (talk | contribs)58,562 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:08, 17 August 2010 edit undoHuey45 (talk | contribs)984 edits →August 2010: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| ::For the record, this guy has been banned. ] (]) 15:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | ::For the record, this guy has been banned. ] (]) 15:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::I know. ] (]) 17:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | :::I know. ] (]) 17:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == August 2010 == | |||
| ] Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in ]. It appears you may be engaged in an ''']'''. The ] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for ], even if they do not technically violate the ]. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you.<!-- {{uw-3rr2}} --> | |||
| ] Please remember to ] when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-agf2 --> | |||
| ] Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in ]. There is a ] that should be followed. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-mos2 --> | |||
| ] Please do not ] other editors, as you did at ]. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> | |||
| ] Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the ] of another user may be considered ]. Specifically, your edit to ] may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to ] for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-upv --> | |||
| You're breaking so many rules, I'm not even sure what templates to use. Anyway, you should know what you're doing wrong and it's about time you started behaving. (] (]) 13:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)) | |||
Revision as of 13:08, 17 August 2010
Cleaning up the page again, everything is in the history. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
New stuff goes at the bottom, people. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~).
thanks
just wanted to post a thanks to you for your patience with what must be a challenge to keep substantive. much appreciated -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Of Course
- sigh* why does it always have to go to deletion. -.- -Angel David (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Rev. Ian Cook
I'm not sure he's a sock for Pastor Terry-John. PTJ was pretty hellfire-and-brimstone, and a self-righteous asshat. RIC appears to be misguided, and he doesn't appear to be carrying out any of the same activity. I wouldn't be amazed if it was OK if just gave him the category page for Wikipedian Christians, explain wikilove to him, and let him go. They may have (had) the same intent (evangelism), but they're reacted to the blocks in completely different ways. If there is an intermediate account, where he goes from PTJ to RIC, I'd be a little more convinced. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- The modus operandi is very similar (Random religious postings on various pages, similar usernames), and i have to admit that i never saw these kind of edits before. At the very least i deem it a little bit strange that there are suddenly two contributers making these edits in the timespan of a few days. The reaction to the block is still religious, though on the complete opposite side of the possible spectrum, so much that my "bad faith" sense tells me that it may just be a bit of theater.
- However, to quote Favonian (From this section): "I shall apply liberal doses of AGF to my cynicism and see what happens". If you believe this editor may be changed for the good please go for it - i prefer a good contributer over a blocked account any day. Besides, Favonian was rather skeptical about my own unblock as well, and even if it ultimately proves to be the same user we would have a clear WP:ROPE case and proof that it is indeed a (new) sockpuppet line. And if not, we will gain a new contributer. Excirial 21:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- As a side note: His talk page access is restored now. Excirial 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks (sorry for the late response, I just got back for the visitation for my aunt). I'll try to keep up with him and see if he can pick up something around here. The timing is a bit strange, but (my grandfather being a minister) the timing registers to me as a coincidence as it does something fishy (I'll grant my perspective may be skewed from having to deal with older evangelicals almost daily). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Moulton
Hi Ian,
You can converse with me either at my talk page on Beta.Wikiversity or on Misplaced Pages Review.
—Moulton 18:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.128.128 (talk)
You are a sinner!
If you try to convert Reverand Ian Cook again you will burn in hell which is full of fire and brimstone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastor Terence (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'll save you a seat, you failure to be a Christlight to the world. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I am the best Pastor alive and I wont let you do anything to God's green earth and converting that guy is damaging God's green earth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastor Terence (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, it's now clear to me that you're either nothing but a troll, or a false Christian using my saviour's religion as an excuse to hate. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- For the record, this guy has been banned. DS (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I know. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- For the record, this guy has been banned. DS (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
August 2010
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Zoroastrianism. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you.
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Zoroastrianism. Thank you.
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Zoroastrianism. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you.
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Zoroastrianism. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User_talk:Huey45 may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you.
You're breaking so many rules, I'm not even sure what templates to use. Anyway, you should know what you're doing wrong and it's about time you started behaving. (Huey45 (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC))