User talk:QuattroBajeena: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Invitation to reconsider: shame? |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
::::A shame for who? I often thank my lucky stars that they both failed. How many RfAs have you had under one of your alternate names? --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 23:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC) |
::::A shame for who? I often thank my lucky stars that they both failed. How many RfAs have you had under one of your alternate names? --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 23:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::Exactly. Keep digging that hole.--[[User:QuattroBajeena|QuattroBajeena]] ([[User talk:QuattroBajeena#top|talk]]) 23:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:46, 3 March 2010
Invitation to reconsider
I have invited you to reconsider your tag on Malleus's talk page, which i've explained there was uncalled-for, and appeared to assume less good faith than was exhibited by the editor you have criticised. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Still not sure how this whole responding to talk page concerns thing works so I'll let you know here too that I responded on Malleus' page.--QuattroBajeena (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Strange you don't know the basics, but you know all about ArbCom, and enough about wikipedia's system of governance to vote on a proposal for its amendment after only 11 edits. Just who do you think you're fooling? --Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've never claimed to know "all about ArbCom", please stop putting words in my mouth. I just read the link to deadminship cases in the CDA navbox and made my own conclusions. It's a shame you apparently still haven't improved your civility after the concerns raised at your two failed RFAs, Malleus.--QuattroBajeena (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Strange you don't know the basics, but you know all about ArbCom, and enough about wikipedia's system of governance to vote on a proposal for its amendment after only 11 edits. Just who do you think you're fooling? --Malleus Fatuorum 12:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- A shame for who? I often thank my lucky stars that they both failed. How many RfAs have you had under one of your alternate names? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. Keep digging that hole.--QuattroBajeena (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- A shame for who? I often thank my lucky stars that they both failed. How many RfAs have you had under one of your alternate names? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)