User talk:Big Hurt

I don't believce the Bible has anything to say about abortion, and if it does that info is not appropriate in the article on abortion, --SqueakBox 21:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Calm down!
I put your "Bible Lessons" link in the article, in the Pro-life links section. Since it is a pro-life link, that's the right place for it. So there's no need for any more edit wars. P Ingerson 22:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, P Ingerson -- Big Hurt

I am in agreement with this. please can you withdraw your vandalism allegations. Are you happy with P Ingerson's compromise. If so, say so and maybe we can get the article unprotected, --SqueakBox 22:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * SqueakBox, what you did could be construed as vandalism, but I'll remove my allegation, nonetheless. -- Big Hurt

I have unprotected Abortion, unfortunatly the links you have added to this page, and others, are considered to be spam. If you feel I have acted unfairly you may take this dispute to Requests for comment. Rje 22:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * The following link isn't spam. It's a sound link and like none other on the page.  Why would you call it spam?


 * jcsm.org/biblelessons/abortioniswrong.htm Bible Lessons - Abortion is wrong

See Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, --SqueakBox 02:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Your link has been removed again. You are already over the 3RR rule. Please don't put it back, --SqueakBox 02:51, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

You don't have a clue what my POv is, so stop fantasising about it, then pretending you do. Nor was I alone in removing your link, --SqueakBox 17:55, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it too much to ask you to put a reason for your reverts? -- Big Hurt

My understanding is you should not blank your talk page. I am not alone reverting your link to alleged consistencies, --SqueakBox 18:39, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Allegedly not being alone isn't an excuse and is certainly no excuse for reverting without stating a reason why. Have a good reason or don't revert my posts. -- Big Hurt

Please don't spout rubbish, such as that I shun the Bible, in your edit summaries, --SqueakBox 06:29, May 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * You're lying. You say that everyone agrees with you for removing my link and for calling it spam.  Read this thread above and you'll see that you're wrong.  Besides, "everyone" (which is one or two people, max) isn't always right.  You have yet to give a good or sound reason for removing the link, so it will be added to the listing, again.  Wait and see. -- Big Hurt

Remove your false allegations that I broke the 3RR, here and at page protection, and that I am lying, asap, or I will take action. I am not willing to tolerate your personal attacks against me, all unfounded. Read the rules, then stick to them, --SqueakBox 15:56, May 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * You did break the 3RR rules! Anyone who looks at the Abortion history for the entry will see.  You won't be able to lie and get away with it this time. -- Big Hurt, 12:16am PST, May 2, 2005

BTW, The Bible does not mention abortion, --SqueakBox 15:56, May 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrong again. You're succeeding at sounding like a whining baby, though . . . and one who is trying to force his POV.  If you really believed what you are saying and if you have any confidence in it, you could say it once and let it go.  However, you have to keep repeating yourself, with no sound arguments or evidence, just repetition, while singlehandedly breaking the 3RR rule and pushing your POV.  I think you need another hobby. -- Big Hurt, 12:17am PST, May 2, 2005

Your false allegations and withdrawing them
How dare you lie and accuse me of lying? Withdraw your false allegations immediately. You got blockked for 3RR. You falsely accused me of breaking the 3RR without offering diffs. As this is an open community you cannot prove your false allegations, because they are lies, and we only deal with the truth here. That is why you got blocked-because you broke the 3RR rule and I proved it. I didn't get blocked because I did not break the 3RR rule. Stop putting your POV link in the article or your case will be taken to a higher authority. Withdraw all your false allegations NOW, --SqueakBox 16:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

It appears all your edits are being reverted by a host of people. Instead of making insulting comments about me getting another hobby, and instead of make allegations you know to be false in the hope of winding me up, why dont you have a go editing this, ie helping wikipedia instead of abusing it to push your own POV, --SqueakBox 16:25, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

If you continue to make knowingly false allegations you will be reported for doing so. Wikipedia is not open to your POV pushing, as you are finding out, --SqueakBox 17:28, May 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I won't withdraw anything. I've taken this case to an administrator. -- Big Hurt, 10:41am PST, May 2, 2005

So you won't withdraw your lies then? An admin is likely to think you are making false and unsubstantiated allegations and take appropriate action, --SqueakBox 18:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify: One can revert 3 times but not 4 times, which you have done twice with abortion. Please respect our 3RR rule, as I always do, and specifically have strictly kept to in my disputes with you. Why are you treating me with such disrespect? I don't deserve to have false allegations spread about me, or be falsely accused of vandalism. Please withdraw all your false allegations by removing them, --SqueakBox 21:24, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Worship
I just noticed your question about why I edited your links at Worship. In the future, please leave such questions on my Talk page rather than directly on my User page; I'm far more likely to notice the questions and respond sooner that way.

Your edits drew my attention because I noticed that several different people had reverted the links after you added them, and you kept putting them back. So I looked at them. It appeared that the links were to a 501c3 site like you said, but I wasn't able to tell whether that represented the views of just three people or an entire denomination or movement. It sounded more like the narrow view of a handful of people, and therefore probably not worthy of prominent mention or even linkage in an encyclopedia article. I hope this answers your question. Wesley 02:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)