User talk:BlindMoose
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Your recent edits to Derek Smart
I refer this section of the recent ArbCom ruling to your attention. Since you are, so far, a Single-Purpose Account, this ruling enjoins you from reverting the article. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I assert that BlindMoose's second edit summary "→Current projects Ben Kuchera's comment does not pass WP:BLP & WP:RL. Please read the ArbCom decision before reverting this change." indicates prior knowledge of the ArbCom ruling. --ElKevbo 15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Like everyone else, I have read the ArbCom ruling. I've had my a/c for several months before this. Just because I don't edit other articles doesn't mean that my sole interest is in this article. You folks want to misuse the ArbCom ruling to push an agenda. An agenda which was the direct cause of the original problems with this article. And please take this stuff to the talk page (where it can be discussed) and out of my user page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlindMoose (talk • contribs) 11:04, March 12, 2007.
- By definition, you are a single-purpose editor. It's not a subjective or negative description - it simply describes your editing history. And thus your edits to the article in question fall under the ArbCom ruling that you not revert edits. Further, you indicate clear knowledge of the prohibition against reverting edits to that article. I'm not sure what there is to discuss.
- Further, your accusations that we are "push[ing] an agenda" is out of line, uncivil, and not appreciated. I offer the friendly observation that you might want to rethink your actions and contributions here in Wikipedia before you find yourself blocked or banned. --ElKevbo 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I'm not going to argue with you or anyone here. Instead, I have filed a complaint on WP:AN/AE
- Like everyone else, I have read the ArbCom ruling. I've had my a/c for several months before this. Just because I don't edit other articles doesn't mean that my sole interest is in this article. You folks want to misuse the ArbCom ruling to push an agenda. An agenda which was the direct cause of the original problems with this article. And please take this stuff to the talk page (where it can be discussed) and out of my user page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlindMoose (talk • contribs) 11:04, March 12, 2007.
