That sounds: 1. Racist. 2. Stupid (judging a person by his nick). 3. How is adding referenced information be disruptive? 4. My nickname shows my oposition to Lukashenka, if you have any problem with that, I don't care. Free Belarus (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
A partial revert is where part of an edit is reverted and part of the edit is kept. In the case of the 09:06 partial revert, I reverted one single word and left this material intact: this. And now, after lying about me deleting referenced information, and lying about me breaking the 3RR rule, now you accuse me of edit-warring. You are the one who has broken the 3RR on two pages today, not me. Just as Woogee supposes, you, Free Belarus, are a disruptive element, a liar, and a troublemaker. —Stephen (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
A revert as I understood is canceling an edit someone did, which is what you did. By your defenition, some of my reverts were also partial because all I did was replacing Poles with Poland, no? And you are the one lying, I didn't lie about the other huy deleting references, he really did that. You are trying to escape from the real argument which is who should be in the collage and what categories should be kept by those cheap tricks. You did break the 3 revert rule, I don't see how the edit of 9:06 is a revert. You are the only troublemaker here, and the only liar here, trying to enter someone of not Polish ethnicity into a collage of Polish ethnicity. I, unlike you, were honest enought to use the discussion page. Free Belarus (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
In the partial reverts, I cancelled part of an edit, not the entire edit. It still counts as a revert for the 3RR, and the sum total of my full and partial reverts does not exceed three. Your reverts do exceed three, both on Poles and on Tadeusz Kościuszko. Then you lied by accusing me of deleting referenced information, then you lied by accusing me of reverting more than three times, and you lied by accusing me of edit-warring. Now you accuse me of lying, but you do not say what the alledged lie was or where it might be found. There is nothing honest about your wild, unfounded accusations or in your blatant edit-warring. I have proven each lie you told and showed your many reverts and how you have broken 3RR. You still maintain that I broke the 3RR, but you cannot find the illusive fourth revert. You can’t, because it does not exist. —Stephen (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I still don't see the difference between a partial edit and an intire edit. Dude, you are the one lying. I blame the other guy for deleting links and categories and I brought a link to that, you I blame for entering someone to an ethnic collage when he doesn't belong to the ethnicity. And again, you have nothing to say so you take it to a personal level. I gave referenced information there, when you put him in a collage of ethnic Poles and I asked for a link about him having Polish ethnicity you ignored that, so my acusations are clear, you are the one trying to blur them. I didn't tell any lies, and you proved nothing. In fact, you are one of the weirdest person I ever met! You didn't give any references, you ignore the discussion page, yet you say you proved something, which looks really funny. I gave you the dates of the 4 reverts, and no, I don't see a partly revery as a non-revert. Free Belarus (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
That sounds: 1. Racist. 2. Stupid (judging a person by his nick). 3. How is adding referenced information be disruptive? 4. My nickname shows my oposition to Lukashenka, if you have any problem with that, I don't care. Free Belarus (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
A partial revert is where part of an edit is reverted and part of the edit is kept. In the case of the 09:06 partial revert, I reverted one single word and left this material intact: this. And now, after lying about me deleting referenced information, and lying about me breaking the 3RR rule, now you accuse me of edit-warring. You are the one who has broken the 3RR on two pages today, not me. Just as Woogee supposes, you, Free Belarus, are a disruptive element, a liar, and a troublemaker. —Stephen (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
A revert as I understood is canceling an edit someone did, which is what you did. By your defenition, some of my reverts were also partial because all I did was replacing Poles with Poland, no? And you are the one lying, I didn't lie about the other huy deleting references, he really did that. You are trying to escape from the real argument which is who should be in the collage and what categories should be kept by those cheap tricks. You did break the 3 revert rule, I don't see how the edit of 9:06 is a revert. You are the only troublemaker here, and the only liar here, trying to enter someone of not Polish ethnicity into a collage of Polish ethnicity. I, unlike you, were honest enought to use the discussion page. Free Belarus (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
In the partial reverts, I cancelled part of an edit, not the entire edit. It still counts as a revert for the 3RR, and the sum tot
al of my full and partial reverts does not exceed three. Your reverts do exceed three, both on Poles and on Tadeusz Kościuszko. Then you lied by accusing me of deleting referenced information, then you lied by accusing me of reverting more than three times, and you lied by accusing me of edit-warring. Now you accuse me of lying, but you do not say what the alledged lie was or where it might be found. There is nothing honest about your wild, unfounded accusations or in your blatant edit-warring. I have proven each lie you told and showed your many reverts and how you have broken 3RR. You still maintain that I broke the 3RR, but you cannot find the illusive fourth revert. You can’t, because it does not exist. —Stephen (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I still don't see the difference between a partial edit and an intire edit. Dude, you are the one lying. I blame the other guy for deleting links and categories and I brought a link to that, you I blame for entering someone to an ethnic collage when he doesn't belong to the ethnicity. And again, you have nothing to say so you take it to a personal level. I gave referenced information there, when you put him in a collage of ethnic Poles and I asked for a link about him having Polish ethnicity you ignored that, so my acusations are clear, you are the one trying to blur them. I didn't tell any lies, and you proved nothing. In fact, you are one of the weirdest person I ever met! You didn't give any references, you ignore the discussion page, yet you say you proved something, which looks really funny. I gave you the dates of the 4 reverts, and no, I don't see a partly revery as a non-revert. Free Belarus (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)