| Revision as of 01:07, 18 November 2010 editDylan Flaherty (talk | contribs)3,508 edits →Reported for 3RR violation← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:25, 18 November 2010 edit undoDylan Flaherty (talk | contribs)3,508 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| :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) | :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 04:25, 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)