User talk:Cddoughty

Stop being disruptive at RFPP
Please stop being disruptive at RFPP. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but persistently arguing after several admins have endorsed the protection (including me) is not appropriate. Tan  &#124;   39  16:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If so many admins are not following WP:PROTECTION policy then maybe you should change it?--Cddoughty (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel we are following policy, so I am not inclined to change it at the moment. Tan   &#124;   39  16:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What that articles that once faced heavy vandalism always have to be re-protected if they only get vandalised 4 times? Yeh..--Cddoughty (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When the vandalism is so heavy that the edits need oversighted, I would say, yes, that's completely in-line with policy. I'm not a fan of indefinite semi-protect either, but I realize in some cases its appropriate. –xenotalk 16:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What was it that was so bad that it needed to be oversighted? And would another article be protected if it faced the same vandalism?--Cddoughty (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't know, it was oversighted before I saw it. 2) Yes. –xenotalk 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By protecting it for such a small amount of vandal edits you are letting the vandals win.--Cddoughty (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Degrippo
A tag has been placed on Degrippo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Syrthiss (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Smashvilletalk 19:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.--Cddoughty (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT. – túrian  patois  19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So what point am I demonstrating? I'm not the one keeps reverting and deleting perfectly fine discussions.--Cddoughty (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion was closed by an administrator. You are not permitted to reopen it. – túrian  patois  19:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins can do that?--Cddoughty (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS

 * You are questioning the reliability of a government report by the Fusion center!? --Cddoughty (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it hasn't been published. How can we verify the veracity of this document? What if the leaking website takes it down? –xenotalk 19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you discussing it here? I thought the templates talk page was were it was supposed to be. But you guys keep deleting or archiving it or whatever.--Cddoughty (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't archive it. –xenotalk 19:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't revert it to reply either.--Cddoughty (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because user talk pages work fine when it's only 1 user arguing for a side. –xenotalk 19:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Momo san Gespräch 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only issue is you guys keep stalking me and deleting or 'archiving' anything I do.--Cddoughty (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some reading material is in order: WP:GETOVERIT, WP:POINT, WP:IDHT, WP:DUCK. Stop being disruptive. – túrian  patois  19:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My discussions don't even reach a page long before you archive/delete it, so I don't know what you are talking about. And Encyclopedia Dramatica was unprotected because for some reason nobody archived or deleted that discussion. Are you worried that might happen again on another page?--Cddoughty (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you here? – túrian  patois  19:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To improve articles like I've already done? Try to anyway.--Cddoughty (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You keep pointing to those pages yet I've never brought up the same proposal to change an article more than once. So I don't know what you are talking about.--Cddoughty (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Warnings
I've got a record amount of accidental warnings on my page now, please double check things before adding another one.--Cddoughty (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the false ones. --Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">talk 19:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)