Jump to content

User talk:Igny: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tentontunic (talk | contribs)
Undid revision 424359862 by Igny (talk)
Tentontunic (talk | contribs)
→‎WP:3RR: Inform
Line 39: Line 39:


You have broken it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states&action=historysubmit&diff=424359056&oldid=424358924] Self revert now. [[User:Tentontunic|Tentontunic]] ([[User talk:Tentontunic|talk]]) 12:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
You have broken it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states&action=historysubmit&diff=424359056&oldid=424358924] Self revert now. [[User:Tentontunic|Tentontunic]] ([[User talk:Tentontunic|talk]]) 12:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

See here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Igny_reported_by_User:Tentontunic_.28Result:_.29] [[User:Tentontunic|Tentontunic]] ([[User talk:Tentontunic|talk]]) 13:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:08, 16 April 2011

Notice

I see that you're on Wiki break so I hope it's ok to still post to your talk page. Anyway, you're being discussed here [1] and, oh yeah, you're now banned from Mass killings under Communist regimes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care about that article that much, although I do find that original sanction too harsh, and if needed I would simply ignore it. Joklolk must be laughing his ass off. (Igny (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Occupation article title

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Igny and "Occupation of the Baltic states".
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am awaiting for further comments from others. (Igny (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Igny, I seriously suggest you to forget for a while about renaming. There are more important problems with this nest of the articles, and we simply waste our time in the dispute that will lead to an impasse.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported for edit warring

Hello Igny. Please se WP:AN3#User:Igny reported by User:Tentontunic (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try something completely different

Taking a peek at your userboxes, do you know the proof for 1 = 2? I remember it was based on .9999 (repeating) = 1 but I've been unable to reconstruct it (after having not thought about it for many years...). PЄTЄRS J VTALK 18:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

, hence 1=2

More generally, for arbitrary a and b denote then

Hence a=b. (Igny (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It just struck me that there are editors who would accuse both of us of attempting to do the same regarding historical cause and effect. :-) Cпасибо! PЄTЄRS J VTALK 20:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have broken it [2] Self revert now. Tentontunic (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here [3] Tentontunic (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]