22:
242:
was anonymous. Considering all this I couldn't take the edit seriously. That he has feelings for her I can underdtand but that he wants to have sex with her??? If you or someone else want to state the same thing in encyclopedic language, back it up with an episode, leave no parts of sentence dangling, sign it with a registered name, I'll have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the edit (if not its validity). --
354:, so other users, with no information anywhere on the talk page, had at least 5 days to adapt to the New State Of The World. Now please explain to me why you chose to do an AIV report instead of putting that statement either on the article's talk page or the IP user's talk page; there might be something in that which says that an apology is warranted, but it sure isn't in the page history. --
121:
Nice laydown. I knew no matter how you wanted to spin it, you realized facts are facts. You're immature, and unfit to be an admin. And apparently, you get that. Releasing a user's personal info as a revenge tactic is pathetic. Considering you have nothing relevant to further add, I don't expect
83:
You making a complete joke of the RfA process with your fifth failed attempt, and giving out a user's personal info as revenge, and admitting as such? Does that ring a bell? That's pretty much what I thought. Hilarious that you had to withdraw with 300 (although that number was rapidly dwindling
241:
How do you know? "he can't have her" is hardly encyclopedic language. John is 15 while
Cameron looks older (at least 20) and is a machine. It's not like John has any doubt about it, he opened her head to switch her off and reboot her. The edit left the end of the original phrase dangling. The edit
368:
You must be more dense than I originally gave you credit for. First and foremost, multiple users have caught the erroneous addition. Second, the user has a dynamic IP, and I've warned on several of his talk pages. He knew better than to add it. I consider this matter closed, in my favor, and
261:, which pretty blatantly states that any good faith effort to edit is not vandalism. I fully agree the edit wasn't encyclopedic, but it wasn't vandalism, since the editor was merely trying to expand on the relationship between John and Cameron.
102:
Thanks for proving correct my assertion that you're a clueless self-important jerk. Oh, and feel free to blank this section; that's why the other blanking took place too. —
84:
as people realized how immature you are) supporters. The only good thing that came of that circus is that you realize now you have zero chance of ever being an admin.
77:
35:
257:
It has nothing to do with whether or not the edit is anonymous, or whether you take the edit seriously. It's based on
Knowledge's definition of
281:
I'm not the one adding it, but I don't see why you're taking it off. It IS an
Universal Picture Film. Why are you removing the category? --
347:
225:
209:
my addition to directv is not opinons... it lists factual things that happened, stop illegally helping directv hide stuff
343:
44:
370:
329:
297:
262:
190:
123:
85:
71:
This argument would have carried a lot more weight if you actually had a clue as to why it was blanked. —
350:. As far as I can tell, the UP category had been on the page up to October 11, and was then removed by
359:
319:
221:
217:
213:
401:
I've blocked you indefinitely. There's no excuse for making comments like that about other editors.
406:
258:
167:
247:
50:
157:
328:
Take a look at the page history, then get back to me. I'll preemptively accept your apology.
286:
46:
21:
355:
315:
104:
73:
402:
311:
174:
151:
351:
243:
178:
66:
410:
378:
363:
337:
323:
305:
290:
270:
251:
229:
198:
183:
160:
131:
108:
93:
48:
282:
189:
No, it's vandalism at this point. It's gone well beyond a content dispute.
147:
296:
Redundant category. This has been discussed, digested, and spit back out.
67:"Let's not forget why DHMO 3 was blanked and closed in the first place"
205:
MY ADDITIONS TO DIRECTV PAGE WERE NOT OPINIONS THEY WERE FACTS
310:
Redundant with what? There's nothing on the talk page. You're
51:
15:
173:
Hi, please never use
Twinkle to undo an edit that is not
398:
146:
Hello, I noticed you reverted some of my edits in the
150:article. I would like to discuss the changes in
177:. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. --
8:
122:any more petty messages on my talk page.
369:expect no further gibberish from you.
277:BTTF: Universal Picture Film category
7:
237:Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles
14:
348:Category:Universal Pictures films
20:
1:
411:13:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
379:21:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
364:21:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
338:21:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
324:21:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
306:14:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
291:13:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
271:22:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
252:21:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
344:Category:Back to the Future
230:21:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
199:12:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
184:12:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
426:
161:00:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
374:
333:
301:
266:
194:
132:10:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
127:
109:10:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
94:10:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
89:
78:07:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
152:the article's talk page
346:is a subcategory of
312:biting the newcomers
371:WikiKingOfMishawaka
330:WikiKingOfMishawaka
298:WikiKingOfMishawaka
263:WikiKingOfMishawaka
191:WikiKingOfMishawaka
168:Titanic (1997 film)
124:WikiKingOfMishawaka
86:WikiKingOfMishawaka
142:Edits to Pi (film)
233:
216:comment added by
57:
56:
417:
232:
210:
181:
52:
24:
16:
425:
424:
420:
419:
418:
416:
415:
414:
395:
279:
239:
211:
207:
179:
171:
166:Your revert on
144:
69:
53:
47:
29:
12:
11:
5:
423:
421:
394:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
278:
275:
274:
273:
238:
235:
206:
203:
202:
201:
170:
164:
155:
143:
140:
139:
138:
137:
136:
135:
134:
114:
113:
112:
111:
97:
96:
68:
65:
63:
62:
61:
60:
59:
55:
54:
49:
45:
43:
40:
39:
31:
30:
25:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
422:
413:
412:
408:
404:
400:
393:Indef blocked
392:
380:
376:
372:
367:
366:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:User:Wildroot
349:
345:
341:
340:
339:
335:
331:
327:
326:
325:
321:
317:
314:, I think. --
313:
309:
308:
307:
303:
299:
295:
294:
293:
292:
288:
284:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
255:
254:
253:
249:
245:
236:
234:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
187:
186:
185:
182:
176:
169:
165:
163:
162:
159:
156:Regards, --–
153:
149:
141:
133:
129:
125:
120:
119:
118:
117:
116:
115:
110:
107:
106:
101:
100:
99:
98:
95:
91:
87:
82:
81:
80:
79:
76:
75:
64:
42:
41:
38:
37:
33:
32:
28:
23:
18:
17:
399:this comment
396:
280:
240:
208:
172:
145:
103:
72:
70:
58:
34:
26:
212:—Preceding
356:Alvestrand
316:Alvestrand
218:Juliahiatt
403:Parsecboy
259:vandalism
175:vandalism
148:Pi (film)
244:Leocomix
226:contribs
214:unsigned
180:lucasbfr
27:Archives
283:Lyverbe
158:sampi
105:Giggy
74:Giggy
407:talk
397:For
375:talk
360:talk
342:OK,
334:talk
320:talk
302:talk
287:talk
267:talk
248:talk
222:talk
195:talk
128:talk
90:talk
409:)
377:)
362:)
336:)
322:)
304:)
289:)
269:)
250:)
228:)
224:•
197:)
130:)
92:)
405:(
373:(
358:(
332:(
318:(
300:(
285:(
265:(
246:(
220:(
193:(
154:.
126:(
88:(
36:1
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
