Revision as of 18:01, 8 April 2013 editSir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled18,508 edits →Your edit to Arendra Modi: comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:40, 11 April 2013 edit undoZhanzhao (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,619 edits →RE: Najib Razak: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
::Your "notification" amounted to a threat that I was to discuss any edit with you or you would revert it without offering a reason. And you used twinkle to revert what was clearly not vandalism. If you would like help to understand our basic policies of WP:OWN and WOP:VANDAL and WP:TINKLE, I am sure the nice administrators at ANI will help you out of you post there.]·] 17:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC) | ::Your "notification" amounted to a threat that I was to discuss any edit with you or you would revert it without offering a reason. And you used twinkle to revert what was clearly not vandalism. If you would like help to understand our basic policies of WP:OWN and WOP:VANDAL and WP:TINKLE, I am sure the nice administrators at ANI will help you out of you post there.]·] 17:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::Your bad faith commentary leaves me no choice but to discontinue any further discussion with you on this page. Thanks. — ] {]} 18:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC) | :::Your bad faith commentary leaves me no choice but to discontinue any further discussion with you on this page. Thanks. — ] {]} 18:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
== RE: ] == | |||
Hi there, I noticed that you reverted my edits on the ] article apparently because of FRINGE and BLP, and to move the discussion to TALK. There actually exists a discussion about this. In fact recently the french courts are investigating the bribery claims plus the upcoming elections meant that there's been new reports about the cases in the various news outlets, which means it is no longer FRINGE. (And the new links mean the old deadlinks can be replaced). Its hard to talk about it on TALK when I am having a onesided conversation as no one else wants to discuss there. Also I've tried to cover that section objectively as I only stated the facts and the official denials by government, so I'm not sure what I'm missing here. ] (]) 04:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:40, 11 April 2013
user - talk - contributions - email - desk - sandbox - status:
|
MessagesArchives: The Basement · My desk · My Barnstars About Build Bright UniversitySir Nicholas <Shirt58 bows and tugs forelock, as base colonial convict type cannot afford a hat to doff>, it would appear to me somewhat odd that there are seven different universities of the same name in Cambodia. Is there some central coordinating body analogous to the University of California system of universities? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
User Kondi ipblock exemptionI just noticed that User:Kondi has an ipblock exemption but you didn't log the rights. The reason "trusted user" seems inadequate for these rights. Can you give more details? Was this discussed with a CU? Thanks.--Doug. 04:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello!Hi, how are you doing? Tony Yew (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks Nick, I am looking forward to this, for me, a new adventure. I do hope you will be there for all of us. (User talk:FreddieKevinDeSouza) —Preceding undated comment added 02:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Terrible Asian pride articleI nominated it for speedy deletion and other users removed it saying it was not a candidate and suggested I add it to the "Articles for Deletion" page but when I did a 5 year old previous deletion with no consensus popped up with a comment by you saying it needed to be re-written and that some time should be granted, but 5 years later that page is still a total joke. What now? http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_December_7 Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Your edit to Arendra ModiIn this edit you revert my edit using twinkle without supplying an edit summary or a reason for the reversion. That is not an ok way to revert good faith edits, especially not edits that have been explained in the editsummary of the one who made them. Twinkle reversions are for obvious vandalism. Recersion of any edit that is not obvious vandalism requires that at least you provide a reason in the editsummary, and at best that you start a discussion at the talk page. I was not impressed with your post to my talkpage suggesting that I am not allowed to edit the article without prior discussion. I am. And everyone is. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
RE: Najib RazakHi there, I noticed that you reverted my edits on the Najib Razak article apparently because of FRINGE and BLP, and to move the discussion to TALK. There actually exists a discussion about this. In fact recently the french courts are investigating the bribery claims plus the upcoming elections meant that there's been new reports about the cases in the various news outlets, which means it is no longer FRINGE. (And the new links mean the old deadlinks can be replaced). Its hard to talk about it on TALK when I am having a onesided conversation as no one else wants to discuss there. Also I've tried to cover that section objectively as I only stated the facts and the official denials by government, so I'm not sure what I'm missing here. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |