User talk:DirkB - Revision history

Hdvaughan: /* Thanks for putting in a good word */

2009-03-26T23:01:18Z

‎Thanks for putting in a good word

Hdvaughan: /* Thanks for putting in a good word */

2009-03-26T23:01:07Z

‎Thanks for putting in a good word

DinsdaleP at 23:53, September 8, 2008

2008-09-08T23:53:48Z

DirkB: My turn to redecorate.

2008-09-06T19:22:16Z

My turn to redecorate.

DirkB: Argh.

2008-09-06T03:46:15Z

Argh.

DirkB at 03:45, September 6, 2008

2008-09-06T03:45:59Z

DirkB: If you have a problem with my edits to Multiplication, you can use that talk page. My edits were fine.

2008-09-06T03:45:42Z

If you have a problem with my edits to Multiplication, you can use that talk page. My edits were fine.

Aschlafly: reply

2008-09-06T03:35:08Z

DirkB: Quoting Ron from HP: "Overkill, mate."

2008-09-06T02:54:01Z

Quoting Ron from HP: "Overkill, mate."

Aschlafly: warning of blocking

2008-09-06T02:41:03Z

warning of blocking

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, March 26, 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	It's nice to feel appreciated ;-) --[[User:DinsdaleP\|DinsdaleP]] 19:53, 8 September 2008 (EDT)		It's nice to feel appreciated ;-) --[[User:DinsdaleP\|DinsdaleP]] 19:53, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

−	Wow, is it nice to have someone on here that thinks for himself. I'm happy to have you here.	+	Wow, is it nice to have someone on here that thinks for himself. I'm happy to have you here. --[[User:Hdvaughan\|Hdvaughan]] 19:01, 26 March 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, March 26, 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:

	It's nice to feel appreciated ;-) --[[User:DinsdaleP\|DinsdaleP]] 19:53, 8 September 2008 (EDT)		It's nice to feel appreciated ;-) --[[User:DinsdaleP\|DinsdaleP]] 19:53, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	Wow, is it nice to have someone on here that thinks for himself. I'm happy to have you here.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:53, September 8, 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{welcome}}		{{welcome}}
		+
		+	==Thanks for putting in a good word==
		+
		+	It's nice to feel appreciated ;-) --[[User:DinsdaleP\|DinsdaleP]] 19:53, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:22, September 6, 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{welcome}}		{{welcome}}
−
−	~~Warning of blocking: your account will be blocked if you continue to talk, talk, talk contrary to the [[90/10 rule]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 September 2008 (EDT)~~
−	:I ''said'' that I wouldn't push it any further! No need to be drastic! Yikes, you even reverted my last post! I did good work before daring to ask for sources! My ratio is far better than 90/10 and even my talk posts were (as far as I can remember without scanning all my contribs) always relevant to improving ''your site''! I helped out Dean's News Project (see my user page) and also improved other articles. Other than ''that one discussion'', my record is nice and clean. And even that discussion started out just because I wanted to learn more! I didn't even disagree with your initial premise! It had sparked my interest! But rest assured that I'll leave you be from now on. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 22:54, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
−
−	:: 13 out of your last 15 edits have been talk, talk, talk, none of which I found informative, and your other two were edits to [[Multiplication]] that required reversion. We don't maintain a high quality level here that way. Please improve your quality. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 23:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
−
−	:::You can practically ''always'' adjust the scope just narrow enough to let 90/10 apply. Reality is that we had a discussion, and you simply didn't like what I had to say (to be fair, I also didn't like what you had to say, but alas, only one of us has a banhammer).
−	:::And huhwhatnow? My Multiplication edits ''required reversion''? Aside from one (utterly pointless) edit war (which I later on resolved in an elegant way even though I still think that I had been correct in my initial edit - or do you assert that I was wrong simply because somebody reverted me?), my edits to that entry had been vast improvements that also cleared out factually wrong statements (such as the implication that multiplication and addition are the only commutative functions).
−	:::I still maintain that I did good work and that this discussion is pointless because I already retreated from the talk page exchange that spawned this block warning. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 23:45, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 :::You can practically ''always'' adjust the scope just narrow enough to let 90/10 apply. Reality is that we had a discussion, and you simply didn't like what I had to say (to be fair, I also didn't like what you had to say, but alas, only one of us has a banhammer).
 :::And huhwhatnow? My Multiplication edits ''required reversion''? Aside from one (utterly pointless) edit war (which I later on resolved in an elegant way even though I still think that I had been correct in my initial edit - or do you assert that I was wrong simply because somebody reverted me?), my edits to that entry had been vast improvements that also cleared out factually wrong statements (such as the implication that multiplication and addition are the only commutative functions).
-::I still maintain that I did good work and that this discussion is pointless because I already retreated from the talk page exchange that spawned this block warning. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 23:45, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
+:::I still maintain that I did good work and that this discussion is pointless because I already retreated from the talk page exchange that spawned this block warning. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 23:45, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:45, September 6, 2008
Line 5:		Line 5:

	:: 13 out of your last 15 edits have been talk, talk, talk, none of which I found informative, and your other two were edits to [[Multiplication]] that required reversion. We don't maintain a high quality level here that way. Please improve your quality. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 23:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)		:: 13 out of your last 15 edits have been talk, talk, talk, none of which I found informative, and your other two were edits to [[Multiplication]] that required reversion. We don't maintain a high quality level here that way. Please improve your quality. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 23:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::You can practically ''always'' adjust the scope just narrow enough to let 90/10 apply. Reality is that we had a discussion, and you simply didn't like what I had to say (to be fair, I also didn't like what you had to say, but alas, only one of us has a banhammer).
		+	::And huhwhatnow? My Multiplication edits ''required reversion''? Aside from one (utterly pointless) edit war (which I later on resolved in an elegant way even though I still think that I had been correct in my initial edit - or do you assert that I was wrong simply because somebody reverted me?), my edits to that entry had been vast improvements that also cleared out factually wrong statements (such as the implication that multiplication and addition are the only commutative functions).
		+	::I still maintain that I did good work and that this discussion is pointless because I already retreated from the talk page exchange that spawned this block warning. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 23:45, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:35, September 6, 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Warning of blocking: your account will be blocked if you continue to talk, talk, talk contrary to the [[90/10 rule]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 September 2008 (EDT)		Warning of blocking: your account will be blocked if you continue to talk, talk, talk contrary to the [[90/10 rule]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
	:I ''said'' that I wouldn't push it any further! No need to be drastic! Yikes, you even reverted my last post! I did good work before daring to ask for sources! My ratio is far better than 90/10 and even my talk posts were (as far as I can remember without scanning all my contribs) always relevant to improving ''your site''! I helped out Dean's News Project (see my user page) and also improved other articles. Other than ''that one discussion'', my record is nice and clean. And even that discussion started out just because I wanted to learn more! I didn't even disagree with your initial premise! It had sparked my interest! But rest assured that I'll leave you be from now on. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 22:54, 5 September 2008 (EDT)		:I ''said'' that I wouldn't push it any further! No need to be drastic! Yikes, you even reverted my last post! I did good work before daring to ask for sources! My ratio is far better than 90/10 and even my talk posts were (as far as I can remember without scanning all my contribs) always relevant to improving ''your site''! I helped out Dean's News Project (see my user page) and also improved other articles. Other than ''that one discussion'', my record is nice and clean. And even that discussion started out just because I wanted to learn more! I didn't even disagree with your initial premise! It had sparked my interest! But rest assured that I'll leave you be from now on. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 22:54, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	:: 13 out of your last 15 edits have been talk, talk, talk, none of which I found informative, and your other two were edits to [[Multiplication]] that required reversion. We don't maintain a high quality level here that way. Please improve your quality. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 23:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:54, September 6, 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Warning of blocking: your account will be blocked if you continue to talk, talk, talk contrary to the [[90/10 rule]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 September 2008 (EDT)		Warning of blocking: your account will be blocked if you continue to talk, talk, talk contrary to the [[90/10 rule]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
		+	:I ''said'' that I wouldn't push it any further! No need to be drastic! Yikes, you even reverted my last post! I did good work before daring to ask for sources! My ratio is far better than 90/10 and even my talk posts were (as far as I can remember without scanning all my contribs) always relevant to improving ''your site''! I helped out Dean's News Project (see my user page) and also improved other articles. Other than ''that one discussion'', my record is nice and clean. And even that discussion started out just because I wanted to learn more! I didn't even disagree with your initial premise! It had sparked my interest! But rest assured that I'll leave you be from now on. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 22:54, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:41, September 6, 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{welcome}}		{{welcome}}
		+
		+	Warning of blocking: your account will be blocked if you continue to talk, talk, talk contrary to the [[90/10 rule]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 5 September 2008 (EDT)