Difference between revisions of "User:Brenden"
(→Thanks) |
(→RE:Block comments) |
||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
==RE:Block comments== | ==RE:Block comments== | ||
I don't see any problem with mocking the liberals who come to this website in order to vandalize it. I know that mocking blocked liberals is also done by some of the best users here (them being the best users is evident by the fact they were promoted to administrators) so I don't see what the problem is. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 00:41, 23 February 2013 (EST) | I don't see any problem with mocking the liberals who come to this website in order to vandalize it. I know that mocking blocked liberals is also done by some of the best users here (them being the best users is evident by the fact they were promoted to administrators) so I don't see what the problem is. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 00:41, 23 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 DamianJohn (who revoked his recent block) agreed with me one time that Donny's behavior was block worthy (see the blocks Donny received on February 16). The fact that on that day Damian did not revoke Donny's block but merely shortened it suggests that his 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]] 04:02, 27 February 2013 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 09:02, February 27, 2013
| ||
|
| Some guy called ash left this 18:50, 21 May 2012 (EDT) |
|---|
| Okay, dudes, I was gonna let you slide for a while because you let Brenden stay- I commend you on your efforts to be rational and nice, Brenden, you seem like a pretty decent guy- but I come back and you're still.. really stupid. I mean god /damn/.
And you think Wikipedia's too partisan. YOU LITERALLY HAVE A LIST OF NEGATIVE ADJECTIVES DESCRIBING LITERALS AS AN ACTUAL PAGE. Face it, <expletive removed>, the truth has a liberal bias. Anyway, yeah, what I usually say, you suck, Cancer zodiac sign, renounce Jesus for the Flying Spaghetti monster, etc., etc. ~Ash |
| ManMuncher, ash, I presume |
|---|
| == get out of here ==
Find a better place to spend your time. not a good place for healthy, normal gays. you seem cool though. |
legitimate alternative accounts
I'm user:Calculus, when I'm using an insecure internet connection.
Hello from Katie
Hello :) Also belatedly. KatieKomori 23:09, 2 December 2012 (EST)
Thanks
I guess you have access to IP addresses and more tools. When legitimate new editors arrive, we need to do a better job of making them feel welcomed. Wschact 12:45, 29 December 2012 (EST)
RE:Block comments
I don't see any problem with mocking the liberals who come to this website in order to vandalize it. I know that mocking blocked liberals is also done by some of the best users here (them being the best users is evident by the fact they were promoted to administrators) so I don't see what the problem is. - Markman 00:41, 23 February 2013 (EST)
DonnyC
The offending edit in question is 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 five blocks for activities such as trolling, rudeness toward others, 90/10 rule violation and spamming. Notice that even DamianJohn (who revoked his recent block) agreed with me one time that Donny's behavior was block worthy (see the blocks Donny received on February 16). The fact that on that day Damian did not revoke Donny's block but merely shortened it suggests that his 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. - Markman 04:02, 27 February 2013 (EST)
