suggest another frivolous or inappropriate CheckUser. Shortcut WP:NOTPOINTyWP:NOTPOINTy WP:POINT is a common shortcut to this page, but just because someone...

further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep per WP:NOTPOINTy (non-admin closure) — csc-1 23:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Zero-dimensional...

believe the rules were applied wrongly in another case (there's a WP:NOTPOINTy policy that outlines the distinction). In this case I believe that this...

Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Consider reading WP:NOTPOINTy. You seem to accuse me of that whenever I am starting discussions. I have...

Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Consider reading WP:NOTPOINTy. You seem to accuse me of that whenever I am starting discussions. I have...

per WP:POINT. K.Bog 18:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Edit: though this is WP:NOTPOINTy. K.Bog 18:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC) I would like to state that I do believe...

and the unpaid zealots and fans. Repeated recreation may be WP:SALTed. NOTPOINTy - there's making a point, and there's disrupting to make a point: In the...

content. And thereby behavior of you two is perfectly explained by WP:NOTPOINTy, which states: "As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making...

space was nominated for deletion per WP:POINT. The result was keep per WP:NOTPOINTy. Joke nominations for Robinhood (company) was also written but later blanked...

examples, to gain an understanding of this guideline's purpose."---Wikipedia:NOTPOINTY --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC) You...

wasn't as clear as I had thought it was. @Lukeno94:, having a point is NOTPOINTy by default. I'm not disrupting anything on Wikipedia to make my point...

HOWEVER he doesn't ACTUALLY disrupt Wikipedia as he suggests, and as the WP:NOTPOINTy says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are...

sure I can agree with the above perception of NPA but according to WP:NOTPOINTy:" commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because...

Dayewalker (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Even if I were making a point, Notpointy says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are...

can't find any evidence of such, and would highly advise you to read WP:NOTPOINTy. Not a single thing you have said can be substantiated based on a review...

WP:CIVIL. Consider the WP:Stick dropped, no matter how WP:POINTy or WP:NOTPOINTy it may have seemed. I'm glad some of you like to WP:BITE. — User:Technical...

(talk) 21:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC) That isn't WP:POINTY editing, per WP:NOTPOINTy However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they...

"oh by the way..." Whether or not I'm making a point is irrelevant and NOTPOINTy as you have broken an exact revocation criteria (and mine was removed...

This point is moot. The WP:POINT argument is also moot, my edits are WP:NOTPOINTy as they are not disrupting Wikipedia. You need to make a more clear and...

that I posted here and here three years ago. which actually indicates WP:NOTPOINTy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC) I didn't read all of that...

a point, without disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, following WP:NOTPOINTy. But User:Aman.kumar.goel continued Edit Warring, personal attacks by...

someone WP:POINTy as it clearly says in that guideline itself (read WP:NOTPOINTy). Technical 13 (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Marriages end in death...

let it be. --TTTommy111 (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC) See WP:NOTPOINTy - there's making a point, and there's disrupting to make a point. In the...

anyway, but that's another point and as such is besides the point. :) WP:NOTPOINTy is what applies, at the very most. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:36, 21...

with regard to the WP:POINT guideline, and specifically the section WP:NOTPOINTy, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting...

Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Consider reading WP:NOTPOINTy. You seem to accuse me of that whenever I am starting discussions. I have...

been discredited pending an explanation of just how WP:POINT applies. WP:NOTPOINTY explains that not all instances of making a point are automatically disruptive;...

Had you read what you linked to, you'd know that the nom is exactly WP:NOTPOINTy. Then, denying a discussion by sending others to start an RfC is an self-illustration...

content. And thereby behavior of you two is perfectly explained by WP:NOTPOINTy, which states: "As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making...

questions. In fact, anyone can ask a question. Also, this (to me) seems WP:NOTPOINTy (making a point is different that disrupting to show a point). --MrClog...

examples, to gain an understanding of this guideline's purpose."---Wikipedia:NOTPOINTY --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC) You...

per WP:POINT. K.Bog 18:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC) Edit: though this is WP:NOTPOINTy. K.Bog 18:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC) I would like to state that I do believe...

with regard to the WP:POINT guideline, and specifically the section WP:NOTPOINTy, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting...

let it be. --TTTommy111 (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC) See WP:NOTPOINTy - there's making a point, and there's disrupting to make a point. In the...

discussion about a standalone article. I'll maintain that this AfD is WP:NOTPOINTY (I'd say everything about that section applies here), but I'm open to...

deleted, there's an appropriate venue for that. You should also read WP:NOTPOINTY, you're rationale doesn't seem to apply here, and is a deletion argument...

must be intended to disrupt for the purpose of making a point (per WP:NOTPOINTY), which I can assure you was not the case. I ask that you strike your...

he restored.. » Shadowowl | talk 10:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Per WP:NOTPOINTY, "making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate...

would suggest you shouldn't "bite" established editors either. 3. WP:NOTPOINTY. WP:POINT exists to prevent disruptive edits used solely to make a point...

with regard to the WP:POINT guideline, and specifically the section WP:NOTPOINTy, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting...

with regard to the WP:POINT guideline, and specifically the section WP:NOTPOINTy, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting...

further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep per WP:NOTPOINTy (non-admin closure) — csc-1 23:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Zero-dimensional...

15:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) I've already told you to read NOTPOINTy before throwing around POINT. Now I suggest you read SNOW as well. --86...

he restored.. » Shadowowl | talk 10:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Per WP:NOTPOINTY, "making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate...

reliability of this information from OpIndia is okay? Also, this is WP:NOTPOINTy because i havent disrupted anything yet, i am just trying to engage in...

must be intended to disrupt for the purpose of making a point (per WP:NOTPOINTY), which I can assure you was not the case. I ask that you strike your...

sanctions broadly interpreted. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC) WP:NOTPOINTY Important note: A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However...

deleted, there's an appropriate venue for that. You should also read WP:NOTPOINTY, you're rationale doesn't seem to apply here, and is a deletion argument...

WP:NOTPERFECTION WP:NOTPERSONNEL WP:NOTPHRASEBOOK WP:NOTPOINT WP:NOTPOINTY WP:NOTPOINTy WP:NOTPOLICY WP:NOTPORN WP:NOTPORNOGRAPHY WP:NOTPORTAL WP:NOTPRIMARY...

discussion about a standalone article. I'll maintain that this AfD is WP:NOTPOINTY (I'd say everything about that section applies here), but I'm open to...

wanted to make a hypothetical comparison to the Republican Party per WP:NOTPOINTy. I wrote it very sarcastically because I was angry. I obviously knew it...