ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) comment |
|||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
You are looking at it from a too confrontational view. All I'm saying is that the reference used to justify Christianity is a horrible reference. It has errors, even forgets that his occupation is lawyer. It is not a primary source. It is just some wacko writing a website. They are not a primary or secondary source. They are a tertiary source, like Wikipedia is. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC) |
You are looking at it from a too confrontational view. All I'm saying is that the reference used to justify Christianity is a horrible reference. It has errors, even forgets that his occupation is lawyer. It is not a primary source. It is just some wacko writing a website. They are not a primary or secondary source. They are a tertiary source, like Wikipedia is. [[User:JB50000|JB50000]] ([[User talk:JB50000|talk]]) 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:You have a beef with the religious description, frustration that the discussion isn't going your way, so you are now taking potshots at other parts of the article in retaliation. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc#top|talk]]) 14:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC) |
:You have a beef with the religious description, frustration that the discussion isn't going your way, so you are now taking potshots at other parts of the article in retaliation. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc#top|talk]]) 14:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
==Personal attacks and disruption== |
|||
Please refrain from doing it. I encourage you to remove or refactor your unconstructive comments. Thanks. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 21:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:07, 5 February 2010
Documented
COMMENT: That is my statement. The form is part of the statement. The (improper) removals are also part of the statement.
(No reply necessary, but undoing your revert would be wise.)
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 20:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Your statement is garbage, to put it mildly, adding nothing of value to the RfC. If you want to crack jokes and do the funny-boy-in-the-back-of-the-classroom shtick, go find another venue. I do not plan to edit-war over it, which is why I brought the matter up on the talk page to let others weight in, but nor will I revert my own edit either. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
New ANI created.
I believe I should give you a heads-up on this ANI regarding Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing
- --Tombaker321 (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Motion
This guy probably needs his own RFC/U, if he doesn't already have one. It's one thing to be a bit contrary, but this dude owns the word. I can't tell you how much I wish that restriction wasn't there so I could "let fly" (as Maximus would say). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Noted; Proofreader77 (interact) 02:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
January 10, 2010
Are you and your buddies afraid of publishing fair and unbiased history? tuco_bad 14:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)
Er, autoblocked?
This "Dylan" account creation/blocking has nothing to do with me, but is apparently someone on the same IP that I sometimes edit from as well. (workplace). Tarc (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
not an ultimatum
You are looking at it from a too confrontational view. All I'm saying is that the reference used to justify Christianity is a horrible reference. It has errors, even forgets that his occupation is lawyer. It is not a primary source. It is just some wacko writing a website. They are not a primary or secondary source. They are a tertiary source, like Wikipedia is. JB50000 (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)