User talk:Bigskyblueeyes: Difference between revisions
→block: template syntax |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
== block == |
== block == |
||
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{time|}}}|You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''{{{time|time}}}'''|You have been temporarily '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing}} in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for disruptive edit warring. The [[WP:3RR|three revert rule]] does not entitle you to three reverts per day, and disruptive edit warring is not allowed independent of the three revert rule.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make constructive contributions]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{sig|}}}|[[User:Revolving Bugbear|< |
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{time|}}}|You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''{{{time|time}}}'''|You have been temporarily '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing}} in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for disruptive edit warring. The [[WP:3RR|three revert rule]] does not entitle you to three reverts per day, and disruptive edit warring is not allowed independent of the three revert rule.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make constructive contributions]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{sig|}}}|[[User:Revolving Bugbear|<span style="color:#006666;">Revolving Bugbear</span>]] 21:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> |
||
- [[User:Revolving Bugbear|< |
- [[User:Revolving Bugbear|<span style="color:#006666;">Revolving Bugbear</span>]] 21:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
Latest revision as of 01:40, 17 February 2023
All right, I know you do not like the canon relationship between Danny and Lindsay on CSI:NY, and if it were up to you, Danny and Flack would be the ones romping in the sack. However, please do not twist the facts to support your opinion. Even though the Danny/Lindsay relationship has been shown very subtly in Season 4, despite your insistence that "twelve episodes in" that there are no signs that they are in a relationship, there have been times when elements of the relationship have been shown, and this is not stuff that Danny/Lindsay shippers are merely taking out of context and twisting for their own benefit. If anyone is taking things out of context and twisting for their own benefit, it is you.
You are delusional. Sex on a pool table does not mean they are in a relationship, no matter what you might seem to think. Yes, I love Danny/Flack but NO, I do not want to see them together on the show. So yes, I will continue to correct Danny and Lindsay's page since there is no proof they are indeed a couple. One night of sex is just that, one night of sex without canon proof there is more.
Maybe you should be the one to stop with the nonsense. If it doesn't happen on the show, there is no canon proof no matter who says they are in a relationship.
block
[edit]