Watchtower Sentinel

Sincerest Apology

I don't know how I managed to "butt in line." Whatever I did, it was inadvertent. Tom (North Shoreman) 21:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My archives

Please don't edit my archives again. As you yourself said, "I decide what to do with my own Talk Page." It seems rather hypocritical to blank the identical message on your talk page to prevent me from linking to it while at the same time insisting that you have the right to keep me from removing the message from my archives simply so you can misuse it. In fact, please don't touch any of my user space pages again. I will consider any such edits to be harassment. IPSOS (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what "seems rather hypocritical" to you or what you would consider harassment. I hold no compassion for you whatsoever. Do not bother me with your crying. If you will remove entries from your archived Talk Pages then what is the point of archiving them at all? Simply admit that the real reason why you keep on deleting what the SysOp told you is because she clearly implied that conclusion and opinion, as used in the article, means the same thing, which would make your obsessive compulsive edit/edit-warring completely unecessary and nonsense.

And that is the story of your complete edit history at WP. You have never contributed any additional/significant information, all of your edits were and still are insignificant little tweaks to create the impression that you are helping on a lot of articles. You will never cheat your way to adminship with that tactic, I will make sure that you don't. - Watchtower Sentinel 22:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn. IPSOS (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Take it

LEAVE MY TALKPAGE THE FUCK ALONE YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IPSOS (talk • contribs) 16:49, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

3rr

You've been blocked, under this one, before, so I won't go for all the template formalities. 48 hours. Please try to avoid getting into foolish revert wars -- if a problem is truly that pressing, consider a report to the admin noticeboards, instead. =\ – Luna Santin (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to block me block User:IPSOS as well for incivility and for the same 3RR violation [that I have never read anywhere in WP to be applicable to user talk pages]. FYI I wasn't reverting an article but User:IPSOS's talk page archive, because he keeps on deleting a SysOp's comment regarding his repeated POV alteration of the original word conclusion to opinion in the Hariakhan Baba article.

So, I got 48 hours while someone who has committed the exact same offense, and (if you take time to check the history of this entire conflict) even initiated it, who unreservely uses the "f" word on another user's talk page gets around a block very smoothly. Wow! Such fairness! Excellent Adminship! – Watchtower Sentinel 18:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, please don't evade your block using open proxies, as you apparently did here. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:IPSOS did not only remove everything but turned his archive into a redirect to my talk page. He did it so that anyone who checks the link to the original Don't sweat the small stuff edit rationale in the Hariakhan Baba edit summaries will end up on my talk page instead. How can you allow this kind of bullying to take place in WP? At this very moment he is again edit-warring with somebody else at the Mahavatar Babaji article. That's basically all he does. - Watchtower Sentinel 18:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:IPSOS' Dirty Trick

User:IPSOS wrote the following to the admin Luna Santin:

"I've tried to strike a rude comment I made an apologize, but he keeps removing the strike-out because he want to use it to get me blocked."

As if an apology will save him from being blocked if the editor decided to apply fairness and equality in his judgment. User:IPSOS' fake apology came after I was blocked for committing half the offense that he did (if ever restoring a SysOp's entry on a talk page that contains crucial elements to an edit dispute can be considered an offense). I said half the offense because User:IPSOS's is also guilty of extreme incivility. If User:IPSOS' fake apology was given prior to my being block, and not an hour after, then it can be considered. But since he did it much later and is only using it to evade judgment then it should not be considered. All decisions must be based on the state of things at the time of my block. It is crystal clear that User:IPSOS should have been blocked at the same time I was blocked for committing a graver offense. – Watchtower Sentinel 19:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)