SkipCaptcha
3,682
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 168:
Line 168: + + +
User talk:DamianJohn (view source)
Revision as of 08:58, February 27, 2013
, 08:58, February 27, 2013→Thanks mate
It's not very hard to get out of people WHAT they believe, the trick is figuring out WHY they think that way. So, I have no problem with admins editing entries to include what they believe, but when they don't include the reasons why... it gets my hackles up. I guess everybody has their weaknesses. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 05:19, 18 February 2013 (EST)
It's not very hard to get out of people WHAT they believe, the trick is figuring out WHY they think that way. So, I have no problem with admins editing entries to include what they believe, but when they don't include the reasons why... it gets my hackles up. I guess everybody has their weaknesses. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 05:19, 18 February 2013 (EST)
:No worries. I agree with that sometimes senior people here post things that they haven't really considered properly. No need to go overboard on it though, which might have been why you were banned for so long. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 05:57, 18 February 2013 (EST)
:No worries. I agree with that sometimes senior people here post things that they haven't really considered properly. No need to go overboard on it though, which might have been why you were banned for so long. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 05:57, 18 February 2013 (EST)
==DonnyC==
The offending edit in question is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=1036893 this]. This kind of relatively mild snark would get a first time offender a warning only, but Donny is no first time offender. Already before the recent block he managed to incur [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ADonnyC five blocks] for activities such as trolling, rudeness toward others, 90/10 rule violation and spamming. Notice that even you agreed with me one time that his behavior was block worthy (see the blocks Donny received on February 16). The fact that you did not revoke his block but merely shortened it suggests that your disagreement with me was not about whether or not Donny's behavior was blockowrthy, but only about the length of the block. In light of his past behavior, the only problem I have with the current block is that it's too short. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 03:58, 27 February 2013 (EST)