STOP VANDALIZING MY PAGE! my edits are legitimate
- Please read and participate in the extensive discussion of this aissue on the talk page and review its archives) before attempting to alter the carefully constructed compromise that is this page. Also I need to warn you about Wikipedia's 3-revert rule under which you could be banned for 24 hours for reverting a page more than 3 times in 24 hours. Rmhermen 16:21, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Checking the edits to this page, User:151.203.229.38 has not vandalized it and that fact that he has not logged in is not to be counted against him. Also deleting conversations in progress is considered poor manners. Rmhermen 16:25, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
the user 151 has reverted COMMENTS ON MY OWN talk page. Is that conversation, or good manners on this site???
- False. I merely restored the comments that you deleted.
- you deleted my own response. that is not conversation. accusing someone of vandalism is rude, and it has no basis in fact. isnt this my own talk page? why should I keep insults on it??
- {{test3}} is not an insult. 151.203.229.38 17:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- you deleted my own response. that is not conversation. accusing someone of vandalism is rude, and it has no basis in fact. isnt this my own talk page? why should I keep insults on it??
is rmhermen the same as user 151.203.229.38 ??
saying that someone is a vandal is a grave insult to me! it has certainly no basis in fact, and you are making this insultive suggestion repeatedly. it is misleading, unfair and very insultive. You broke the 3 revert rule and try to intimidate me all the way from the beginning. I will complain extensively to this abuse. If you are the same user as rmhermen, who is some operator here, this abuse is even worse, and it will not go unnoticed. I am probably not the only person who was abused by yourself here!!!
- I do not believe that your edit should be in the article and I hope you have read through the talk archived to see why but I also do not beleive that your edit is vandalism. The appropriate page for you to ask at concerning 151.203.229.38 would be Three revert rule violations. Rmhermen 17:42, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
ok, what should be in the article of course is a matter of opinion, and i did not read the talk pages. perhaps i will do that and rise my concerns there, i believe page is outrageously biased, but that is another issue. people can have different views, but that is not vandalism - i suspect that i will waste much more energy on that, though. perhaps other people will, since surely there are different views than the one as it is there now. i just think that 151 is abusive, and that he should not insult people like that; i will post my complaint since he clearly broke the 3 revert rule!
Please see