User talk:Isopropyl
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- This is the talk page of a Wikipedia user. For the functional group, see isopropyl.
| Archives |
|---|
 |
|
Most recent |
[edit] User talk:Dxwwe
- This guy's not a newbie, he's a long-term vandal who constantly adds this sort of crap into articles. He previously edited today as an anon (Special:Contributions/71.111.150.72). Danny Lilithborne 03:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- If the user keeps it up, rewarn and relist as necessary. Isopropyl 03:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] UberCryxic
UberCryzic has vandalized the Stormfront page four times - this is not a mere content dispute. I have made an effort to change the wording to make the content more agreeable and he deletes it out of hand. I make extensive arguments for keeping the paragraph and he deletes it without making one. He is trying to take ownership of the article. Stick to the Facts 03:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have no prior involvement with this dispute, but if you have issues with the article you need to discuss on the talk page. WP:AIV is for obvious vandalism only; please see WP:VANDAL. If, after thorough discussion, you feel that the dispute has not been satisfactorily resolved, you may progress to dispute resolution. Isopropyl 03:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Vandalism includes intentionally disrupting the site via repeated blanking of pages or parts of pages. He has had three warnings and has done it again. He does not provide arguments for removing content - I've provided *11* cites and he still insists I've done 'original research.' Every cite is to either legal statute or to direct proof of content and opinion on a website.
-
- You made this determination quite quickly. Can you reconsider it? How should I take the next step to deal with this. Thank you, Stick to the Facts 03:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I thought I should drop in a line since this was about me. My edits were all well-meant and taken in good faith, hence they cannot possibly be vandalism. More disturbingly, however, the user is wantonly accusing people of vandalism (not just me, but other editors who are involved in the relevant article) for seemingly the sole purpose of gaining the moral high ground and giving legitimacy to his edits. That is, he realizes this is not vandalism, but is willing to continue to make those accusations to forego serious debate. It's a nice way to appear like you're supporting the policies of Wikipedia while subverting Wikipedia itself. And finally, the user was banned for his actions in the article for contravening the decision reached by three other editors (he violated 3RR in undoing our edits).UberCryxic 03:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your editing
Lost interest? Or taking a break? - crz crztalk 21:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- School is getting busy, unfortunately. Hope everything's cool on your end! Isopropyl 06:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
