| Revision as of 16:00, 1 April 2009 editBoston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,063 edits crazy butter← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:07, 1 April 2009 edit undoSkywriter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,395 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
| ==Spice Cake== | ==Spice Cake== | ||
| Thanks for the ]. It looks delicious in at least two ways and I wish it were real. It also reminds me of a ridiculous personal episode not too long ago when ] left over from brownie making was used to make perhaps the strangest ] ] ''ever''. --] (]) 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | Thanks for the ]. It looks delicious in at least two ways and I wish it were real. It also reminds me of a ridiculous personal episode not too long ago when ] left over from brownie making was used to make perhaps the strangest ] ] ''ever''. --] (]) 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| In regards to your recent edits, please remember to follow ] and ] policy, as well as ]. There's no need to that many categories when more specific ones are already included. You may not realize it, but edit was POV. You were correct in rewording 'negroes', but the image depicts a lynching carried out by KKK members. For some reason you added '] Americans'. appear to be OR. Claiming that actual slavery existed in the US until 1945 is incorrect (even if a WSJ reporter thinks so). His book is entitled ''Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black People in America From The Civil War to World War II.'' I haven't read the book, but the first few words of the title doesn't seem to be referring to actual slavery (key phrase: 'by Another Name'). He might be using a metaphor, but your wording makes it seem like he thinks pre-1865 slavery existed until 1945 (if it's not a metaphor and he thinks actual slavery existed, then I can find countless sources that prove him wrong). Please be more careful with your choice of wording. Thanks. ] ] 14:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| More in perspective is your personal POV that the existence of this article is not an insult to the ] of ]. I believe you are confused also because you have not only NOT read the award-winning book, which you condemn and opine about without reading, but you failed also to read the reviews, which are widely available. Somehow you are of the mistaken impression that ] have played no role in black history. And, in that, you are factually so wrong. That this so-called article exists at all on Misplaced Pages is a broad insult to a vast number of people in the US and throughout the world. It is perverse that people like you believe that the lynching of black people is a joke. | |||
| Unless you fancy yourself the advice nanny, and will not be shaken from that notion, or you somehow believe that your personal POV is superior to other viewpoints, you are advised to be more careful in spewing advice willy-nilly, and in your choice of wording because you sound very much like you don't know what the hell you are spewing about.] (]) 22:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:07, 1 April 2009
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| How you durrin? |
I will reply on this page unless you request otherwise
Please watch this page if you comment
If I leave a comment on your page, I will watch it for a response
| Contents |
|---|
Bluck
Boston (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
How you durrin? No, I am not implying that you are a chicken hawk.--Boston (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm durrin real good. Chicken hawk? I bet you think I'm a chicken head! (side note: APK loves hip hop, but that song is just plain dumb) APK How you durrin? 10:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- After that last video, here's a palate cleanser. APK How you durrin? 10:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Want to see something scary?
I'm not being facetious. For humor value though, notice that I, among others, am labeled an "infamously vituperative... homophobe". Aleta 02:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- "The Infamously Vituperative YouTube Homophobes (malevolent disseminators of anti-gay rhetoric)" - I love it when idiots use big words in the attempt to look intelligent. I knew bisexuals were TEH EVIL, but not that evil! zOMG, hide the churren! :-) APK How you durrin? 10:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- His account's been suspended. Aleta 00:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Indef block...Youtube style. APK doesn't need a stimulus. He can stimluate himself. 15:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- His account's been suspended. Aleta 00:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Want to see something else scary?
Somehow I think this photo I took will resonate with you. --Boston (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- More cushion for the pushin. Bow-wow-chicky-bow-wow Oh lawd, I need to visit a church and repent.
- just for shiz and giggles APK How you durrin? 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Becks is loving the Staples pix. Location of easy, indeed! Becksguy (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I know you're all grown up now...
and don't visit us old folks back home much, but give me a holler if you're headed to NC. Some of the admins in NC are interested in setting a date for our first meetup. (Watchlisting. Saw your post just above mine at WT:INDIA and thought ... hey! I know him!) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Mommy, wow! I'm a big kid now." Hello there ol' timer. While I must admit my neighborhood is a wee bit more interesting than North Kakalaki (meet our mayor), Raleigh will always be my home (apparently, quite a few people want to call Raleigh home as well). I might head down South sometime this summer. Where were ya'll going to meet? APK doesn't need a stimulus. He can stimluate himself. 15:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's looking like Raleigh. I'll have a mint julep waiting. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
GhostNet
Affirmative. Given you're cleaning up, responding to the conspiracy theorests, etc, is unnecessary. Toby Douglass (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- One thing - I would like to see my comment to "M Haoran" remain. I think it is useful that people are aware that user accounts are being created purely to push a particular view into the article, because I think people in general might not think that would happen, and so be more vulnerable to it, by being unaware that such users exist. Toby Douglass (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's up to you. I see you've been editing since 2005, so you're probably aware of what can or cannot reduce trolling. IMHO, it would be best to ignore them. The only people who will take them seriously are fellow conspiracy theorists (aka introverted 40-year old virgins that worship Chomsky) APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Rather surprised at the reminder! I thought FingersOnRoids' a serious user but that he was falling prey to the same flaw in reasoning he was pointing out in mine, and so deserved a reply *with regard to that type of reasoning error*. Of course, making that point about the issue in hand means you're discussing the issue in hand... :-) Toby Douglass (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry if I'm butting in here, but as it would be inappropriate to further respond on the talk page, my reasoning is that, hypothetically, if you were part of group that ran the ghostnet operation, would you really want to post on its Misplaced Pages talk page, which could potentially lead authorities straight to you? Someone involved would hardly want to advertise their participation in the smallest way, unless they were extremely lacking in common sense. Perhaps infinitesimal was the wrong word, "unlikely" would have been a better term to use, in hindsight. I hope that explains the reasoning for my comment. Regards, ƒingersRoids 02:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Spice Cake
Thanks for the space cake. It looks delicious in at least two ways and I wish it were real. It also reminds me of a ridiculous personal episode not too long ago when crazy butter left over from brownie making was used to make perhaps the strangest potatoes au gratin ever. --Boston (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
And you are lynching Negroes
In regards to your recent edits, please remember to follow NPOV and OR policy, as well as CAT guidelines. There's no need to add that many categories when more specific ones are already included. You may not realize it, but this edit was POV. You were correct in rewording 'negroes', but the image depicts a lynching carried out by KKK members. For some reason you added 'white Americans'. These edits appear to be OR. Claiming that actual slavery existed in the US until 1945 is incorrect (even if a WSJ reporter thinks so). His book is entitled Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black People in America From The Civil War to World War II. I haven't read the book, but the first few words of the title doesn't seem to be referring to actual slavery (key phrase: 'by Another Name'). He might be using a metaphor, but your wording makes it seem like he thinks pre-1865 slavery existed until 1945 (if it's not a metaphor and he thinks actual slavery existed, then I can find countless sources that prove him wrong). Please be more careful with your choice of wording. Thanks. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 14:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
More in perspective is your personal POV that the existence of this article is not an insult to the history of African Americans. I believe you are confused also because you have not only NOT read the award-winning book, which you condemn and opine about without reading, but you failed also to read the reviews, which are widely available. Somehow you are of the mistaken impression that white have played no role in black history. And, in that, you are factually so wrong. That this so-called article exists at all on Misplaced Pages is a broad insult to a vast number of people in the US and throughout the world. It is perverse that people like you believe that the lynching of black people is a joke.
Unless you fancy yourself the advice nanny, and will not be shaken from that notion, or you somehow believe that your personal POV is superior to other viewpoints, you are advised to be more careful in spewing advice willy-nilly, and in your choice of wording because you sound very much like you don't know what the hell you are spewing about.Skywriter (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)