| Revision as of 06:36, 18 November 2010 editRomanHistorian (talk | contribs)4,911 edits ←Blanked the page← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:12, 18 November 2010 edit undoCivilizededucation (talk | contribs)2,937 edits Why do you keep blanking the page so fast? The community should get to see what is going on here?Undid revision 397454644 by RomanHistorian (talk)Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Reported for 3RR violation == | |||
| Roman, I felt it necessary to report you for the edit war over ]. The report is . ] (]) 00:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Accusing me of bias is not a defense against edit-warring. It's just a rather obvious attempt to distract the administrators, and I suspect they're not so foolish as to fall for it. We'll see. ] (]) 01:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Life is full of irony. After John got the article partially protected to allow you to edit while silencing that non-vandal IP, I wrote to Nev1 to request that it be moved to full protection or none. When Nev1 chose the former course, this made your 3RR violation a dead issue. As Magog pointed out, you would have been blocked. | |||
| ::Since blocks are intended to be defensive, not punitive, I can only hope that you've learned a lesson from all this. One possible lesson might be "don't pick on IP's by calling them vandals". Another would be "Slinging mud is not a defense". I'm sure you can think of a few more, but let me offer one of my own: "People who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them." ] (]) 04:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:12, 18 November 2010
Reported for 3RR violation
Roman, I felt it necessary to report you for the edit war over Gospel of John. The report is here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Accusing me of bias is not a defense against edit-warring. It's just a rather obvious attempt to distract the administrators, and I suspect they're not so foolish as to fall for it. We'll see. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Life is full of irony. After John got the article partially protected to allow you to edit while silencing that non-vandal IP, I wrote to Nev1 to request that it be moved to full protection or none. When Nev1 chose the former course, this made your 3RR violation a dead issue. As Magog pointed out, you would otherwise have been blocked.
- Since blocks are intended to be defensive, not punitive, I can only hope that you've learned a lesson from all this. One possible lesson might be "don't pick on IP's by calling them vandals". Another would be "Slinging mud is not a defense". I'm sure you can think of a few more, but let me offer one of my own: "People who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them." Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)