User talk:SlimVirgin/History 2: Difference between revisions

< User talk:SlimVirgin Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:49, 18 August 2005 editBigelow (talk \| contribs)64 editsm Fucking bitch of a cunt!← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 03:19, 27 July 2014 edit undo76.174.137.246 (talk) rv experiment ...
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{\| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background-color:#f8fcff; border-style:none; border-width:3px; border-color:#b2a4c5;"
	\|align="center" width="100%" style="border-style:solid; border-width:3; border-color:#80737C; background-color:<!--#99CC99--><!--#FFCCFF-->#9999CC; color:#000000;"\|'''Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.''' — Jimbo Wales
	\|-
	\|valign="top" style="border-style:solid; border-width:3; border-color:#b2a4c5; background-color:<!--#CCFFCC-->#FFFFCC; color:#000000;"\|__NOTOC__
	{\| align="center"
	\|-
	]
	]
	'''Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper.''' — Robert Frost
	-------
	<center>''And in the (highly unlikely) event that you're here with a ]:''

	"Any time something is written against me, I not only share the sentiment but feel I could do the job far better myself. Perhaps I should advise would-be enemies to send me their grievances beforehand, with full assurance that they will receive my every aid and support. I have even secretly longed to write, under a pen name, a merciless tirade against myself." </center>
	<center>— ''Jorge Luis Borges''</center>
	---------
	<br>
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	__TOC__

	== ] ==

	Thank you for dealing with this person. I can tune out his absurd accusations and racist personal attacks, but his bizaare edits (and accusations of anti-white racism for reverting them) was beginning to grate. --] ] 00:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

	:I'd also like to thank you. His racially motivated crackpot theories were getting on my nerves.--] 14:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

	== Thanks ==

	Thank you for supporting my nomination. ] 09:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


	Thanks for adding the links.--] 15:31, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

	== Are secondary sources preferred to primary sources? ==

	I'm having an argument with Zeno over at ]. There are two stories explaining surah al-Tahrim, one of which involves Maria. Zeno accepts the story re Maria and believes the other story to be false. I'm asking him for proof of an assertion, he's saying he found it in some secondary sources, I say I can't confirm it from primary sources, and ... he's quoting you to the effect that secondary sources are preferred to primary sources.

	I do think that he's misunderstood your injunction when you opened the Islam article up to edits again -- you said you wanted good, solid, academic, secondary sources. I read that as you don't want a recrudescence of web-site and chat-forum material; he's reading that as secondary sources are preferred to primary sources.

	Please come to the Maria article and clarify your remarks. Of course, if you're going to say that secondary is better than primary, I'll disagree vehemently with you, but we might as well get straight what your opinion is, and what Misplaced Pages policy is. ] 12:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

	==Vamprie article==

	dreamGuys at it agin, removing my additions, claiming they are crap when i tried rather hard ot make it a good one, and trying to insert pPOV again. all im trying to do is to help the article along, hes deleting massive sections and alteringthings with zero explaination. please help] 01:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

	== Islam ==
	Hey, a while ago you said you'd get back to me about the Islam article issues we'd discussed. Just curious if you're still doing somethng or what... if you're busy just quickly write "busy" so I know what's going on. Thanks. ] ] 12:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

	==Regarding Gabriel/Gavin==

	For the record, I did not agree to not "talk to or about" Gabriel, as he apparently claims wa his understanding... I simply volunteered (as in something out of my way just to be nice and not at all required) to "avoid conversation" with him. I'm certainly not going to abandon any articles he might show up on in fear that I'll come into contact with him, and I will revert him if (when) he makes changes I feel are totally inappropriate to articles that have been on my watchlist for a long time. And of course I also think it's only fair that I present evidence at his RfAr if I want to. I've been trying not to just in general because I don't want him to rationalize things to himself as a conspiracy I have against him, but then he already did do that anyway thinking that the ArbCom position was something I told them to say. I'm not under any sort of punishment here, I was just hoping to give him less to come up with bizarre and inappropriate excuses about. ] 12:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

	==Feedback (Part III) ==

	*He keeps changing headers from "the song" to "song information". Most WP singles articles have "the song" listed. He may not like it, but most articles have "song information".
	:::Oops, I meant the song. Mel claims otherwises on your page that they are equally divided between the two concering the pages in dispute. Please don't listen him. That is a lie. And I should know, since I created those articles or added the headers.
	::::I don't follow, sorry. ] <sup><fontcolor="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
	:::::Mel said that the single articles were divided between two headers, but they all said "the song" before he changed many of them to "song information".
	*He keeps removing headers from single articles.
	::Can you give me an example of an article where he's removed the headers?
	::: Low (song) and The Trouble With Love Is
	::::It does look odd with a header called "The Song" when the article is about the song. I'd say Mel is right about that. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
	:::::Isn't song information just as bad though? Because when I think of "the song", I think of the song aspect of it. But when of think of "song information" it seems odd, because the whole article is about information of the song.
	*If you look at www.jenniferlopez.com, you can see the remix notation
	:No, I couldn't see it. You need to provide sources showing you have a reason to go against WP house style, so could you provide links please (several of them, not just to one website) show that this is the industry style (link to specific pages, not the home page of a website). Without providing sources, you can't keep changing the house style. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
	::Industry sources: Official Billboard Charts
	and ASCAP information

	*Chart notation. The MOS allows us to use numbers written out to talk about chart information.
	::Where does the MoS allow this?
	::: "Numbers may be written as words or numerals. Editors should use a consistent guideline throughout an article. A number should not appear in both forms in the body (excluding tables and figures) of the same article."
	::::I need a link please to the page and section. But my guess is that if you concentrate on that one issue with Mel, he may agree to compromise. All I know is that most publishers (and editors here) write one to nine or ten, and thereafter 11, 12, etc. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
	:::::Yeah, I've been concentrating on that since Day 1, since its my main issue, but he doesnt want to budge. ] Section 3, subsection 3.
	*Too much capitalization in the infobox: Single Released, Single Format, Song Length. No need for the second word to be capitalized, because they're not titles.
	::Well, this is not a major issue, but I can, I'd like to see if we could keep it some extent or work on some compromise. When the tables were put in, I was told they were offficial WikiMusic single tables or something like that. And Ive seen them on other articles.
	:::It goes against house style, and it doesn't look good. Ask Mel on the talk pages of the articles whether he's prepared to compromise on that, but don't revert because of it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
	::::I think in some aspects it does look good, like if you look at the pages where it says "Video director" it looks very odd. Well, is there any way to help this debate? Considering he wont even change things when the MoS says when can, I know this is going to be a hard time convinving him, even though his edits make things look horrible. He's already changed most of the infobox, which I don't agree with, but I'm just asking for a small points there.
	*Too much capitalization in headers: References to Other Songs - it should be "other songs."
	::Well the main part fo that part was the references in that song. So if something has to go, reference should stay
	:::The issue is whether to write Other Songs or Other songs in headers. It should be the latter. When it doubt, don't capitalize (that goes for everything, not just headers). ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
	*Well, like Ive told Mel constatnly, I have no issues with grammar. These just happened to get reverted back. Which is not a good thing, but Mel is guilty of doing the same. Like he just removed a whole section from that same article! Whenever he rolls back he gets rid of so much info.
	:Okay, but you have to stop deleting his improvements to the grammar. If you keep doing it, it will count as disruption, which is blockable. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
	::Can you tell him to do the same too? He always reverts things wholesale, and often removes information; like I just had to restore some more information to some article he reverted. He removed chart information for no good reason, and often when he reverts he always get rid of a lot of information.
	*The main things for me are chart information, header changes, and remix notation. I have some other issues too, but for now if we can focus on those and compromise, I think that would help ] 08:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
	::Okay, thank you. He's right about the headers. He's right about the Remix/remix issue as far as house style is concerned, but if you can find sources to back you up, fair enough. I still don't get the chart information thing, and you need to refer me to a specific section of the MoS for the numbers, or explain exactly what you want to Mel, and look for a compromise position. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

	Until it's sorted, please don't revert him any more. The issue of general grammar and spelling is more important than whether to write Remix or remix, so that's what we need to concentrate on first. If you continue reverting, it will lead to pages being protected, it may lead to you being blocked for disruption, and it may also lead to an RfC, and it's definitely not worth the hassle for you. Try to compromise and stick to house style. If you have a specific article with a particular dispute, please post a note on my talk page, and I'll come and look at it for you. Does that sound fair?
	::Well, I think the header aspect is even worse in the other way, but indeed, sounds fair. Can you ask him not to revert everything also? I just made some edits (which I dont think were wholesale reverts), and I bet he is going to cause another edit war. Whenever he reverts, he often gets rid of info (like I just had to restore something right now, cause he didnt even look to see what he reverted) Tell him to stop reverting me too. If he a problem with them, he should let us know on the talk page. Can you watch out for him too, and tell him to stop it? But yes, I agree with you, revert wars go nowhere and leave everyone screwed.
	] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:57, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

	== The Trey Stone Gang ==

	I'd like to give you a heads up on the latest addition to the Trey Stone gang, ]. He is an abusive editor, lying on edit summaries, making personal attacks and pushing the boundaries of even his own circle's rather hazy notions of good wikiquette. I'm going to be filing an RFC come monday, but will need enough support to make it stick. ] - 15:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

	==Image tagging==

	Hi Slim. Apologies for both the late reply and also if I caused an edit conflict with your image recent upload and my hasty tagging. I use the advanced RC look, and sometimes open the tab of new users to mark their uploads accordingly. I was doing so at the time when your upload appeared and as it was untagged, I fiddled :) Keep up your great work here. I'm just tucking in and straighting up any jagged edges. Cheers. -- ] \| ] 00:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

	==the Vampire article==

	I tried editing the article, and restoring massive sections that have been destroyed needlessly, but the other involved editor refuses to see that its not good to exclude that information, and calls me blind, rather then ghet in trouble, i have asked Ed poor's opinion, and i have placed a notice on the RFC, for i belewive thathte other editor is attempting to Soapbox, on this and other articles, just look at his edit summaries, some seem might strange. This is an ongoing problem, as he refuses to see any other viewpont then his own] 08:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

	==Gabriel/Gavin==
	:And he's just back from his ban and blind reverting everything I did on ] and ] back to a version before he left, which on vampire means he's yanking out a number of changes made by other editors to get back to the one he did yesterday. ]

	And he's using ] for personal attacks. ] 08:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

	:He's currently involved in a revert war with ] at ] - seems to be reverting reasonably neutral language back to a POV edit. ] 09:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

	Regarding your message on my talk page, violations of 3RR don't have to have the exact same reverts each time, or else all someone has to do is split the same revert over additional edits to get around it. Previous 3rr cases for him counted if any single part of the whole thing was reverted four or more times, and he has that easily, with the restoration of the Modern Real Vampirism section, the improper capital V on vampire in the vampire subculture subhead, and so forth.

	And his splitting of the edit caused a whole section to be duplicated. (The drinking blood section is also under pathology.) If you really don't want to additionally block him for it beyond the 24 he already has for the RfC reverts, I'd be fine with that if you undid his last two edits to clean that all up, because I can't get in there and get rid of that mess without violating 3RR myself.

	As far as articles he edit wars with me on, that would be a long list. Most common would be ] and ] of course, as he did those today evem but he was active in the past blind reverting me on ], ], ], ], ], ] and probably others. ] 09:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


	==He's acting up again==

	Slim, could you please tell Mel to quit acting up? He is reverting edits again wholesale! Someone is trying to add content and he is just reverting them without looking at them. At the same time, I thought it would be understood that I wouldnt revert his major edits while we were in the middle of this debate, and he wouldnt touch mine, but he continues to do it. Can you please help? Thank you.
	And he is doing this to me too again content wise ! I just added some content, and he is reversing content again! Is there a way you can help me a file an RFC against him? I don't know why he keeps doing this. Maybe a better idea would be for you to protect all Mariah Carey articles? That way no one can touch them until this debate is over?
	] 12:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

	==Many Thanks==
	Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. ] 16:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

	==Political epithets==

	Can you please reconsider your marking out of sourced information? The Zionist rag comment was indeed from an anonymous editor, but the rest wasn't. The source I listed was an article called ''View from the Sofa''. Here's the specific quote: ''Baker bandies around the latest buzzword of the Islamophobes- Islamofascism as coined by that famous liberal Christopher Hitchens (so left he’s right) and there’s an air of smug vindication in his whole article.'' Yes the Zionist rag comment is offensive but once again it's in the COMMENTS section.] 20:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
	:Take a look at the Judeofascism section. It contains the claim that most Jewish people find the term deeply offensive. I'm sure that this is true, and it seems like common knowledge. However, when I try to add a similar, obvious claim to the Islamofascism section I am asked for a citation of every single fact. I think that the best compromise here is to include both statements in both sections or remove both.] 20:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

	==]==
	<!-- Please note that if it says "Editing Template:Idw (section)" at the top then you are editing the master copy of this template. You might want to cancel this edit and use the "edit this page" tab on you user talk page instead. -->
	{\| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="border: 2px solid #FF0000; background-color: #F1F1DE"
	\|-
	\| '''Image deletion warning'''
	\| style="font-size: 80%" \| ] has been listed at ]. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.
	\|}

	You have blocked me and failed to deal with the vandalism I was attempting to prevent. Politeness prevents further comment. ] 07:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	==Gabriel's just back from a block==

	And doing all the same edit warring AGAIN, including ] and ]. This is just so tedious. ] 12:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
	:And he just violated 3RR on ] yet again. ] 13:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
	::did not. any edit that was a r eversion was half of something, then i took the edit that soemeone else did and re added that , sopt hat your foolish deletion of MY work wouldnt be. becasue you stubbvornly wont seem to allow anyone you donbt agree with to contribute ANYTHING to articles you have your filthy hands in.] 13:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
	:::Splitting reverts into sets of two edits does not in any way change the fact that you are still reverting. I mean, come on Gabriel, stop trying to come up with ridiculous excuses here. You changed it back the same way you had it before 4 times in a few hours, that's a 3RR violation. This has been explained to you before, and you were blocked before when you tried to use an excuse like that, so you should kno better by now. ] 14:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

	::reinsterting infomration thatyou delete for no valid reason ( the resons cited keep shifting, check the edit summaries, thereafore, no valid reason){ is NOT reversion, its simply eaasier to use two steps to reinsert the data then to use one, it saves me a lot of pain in typing whne i otherwise woulnt have to. whatsd your latest excuse for hating me? found morethen below for hating me? or have you forgotten how to imagine things? ] 15:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


	to slimvigin - i really am sorrty that all tihs crap has to loitter ytour talk page.,,.. you didnt do anything to deserve it.] 15:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	im not edit warring, your removiong my worthwhile edit, and you probably havnt even read it. as for Othetkin, the change isnt w ar until SOMEONE starets reverting out of turn, not to mention totally unnessesarily, and IF you bothered to read what DragonflySixtyseven said on your page, youd be convinced as well.] 12:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
	:I did read it, and was not convinced, and neither was anyone else on that page. You have to stop assuming that you are right and acting like you can do no wrong. ] 14:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

	as for the vampire 3rr thing examine the edit history, edits are done in pairs, one to change back to before his reversion which is u=njust, and a second ( and sometimes third) to repair any accidental deletions , see, becasue my edits are so spread out, its easier to revert, and then re add the comments and chanbges of other users. its a two step process tha hes trying o get me in crap for.] 14:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	:::see, hes so stubborn hes edit warring on this very page!] 14:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	::::I've reported you for 3RR violation on this page (Gavin, not SlimVirgin). And it is a personal attack, because of the POV phrasing. Furthermore, it's ''DreamGuy's section title'', and editing it is tantamount to editing DreamGuy's comment, something you should bloody well know not to do. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 14:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	YEah well, guess what, thats not what i was trying to do, he keep whining whever he cant make me be quiet on hos pet project pages, and so he keeps trying to get me blokced, well ues w what, this time, and this time and THIS time., i havnt done anything wrong. theres no such thing as 3rr on talk pages.] 14:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
	:Erm, there is.... --] 15:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
	:There is too. And you do a good enough job of getting yourself blocked without DreamGuy's help. I suggest you take the recommendation that's been made a zillion times to heart, and '''not revert anything at all'''. As it is, the ArbCom will not look kindly on this incident. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 15:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	please forgive this language but, how the hell am is supposed to add anything here if people keep removing t what i place here weithout readiing it??(which is what dreamguy does to me, becasue, franly he doesnt like me, and i DONT know why, becasue i NEVER did anything to him) tell me, how am i uspposed to add things if people remove them? then im just WASTING MY TIME] 15:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	:Oh, that's enough. I do read what you post. And you NEVER did anything against me? What the hell? You vandalized my user page, filed an RFC against me, erased my talk page comments, followed me around on articles you had never touched before to revert all the edits I made each day, hopped on a sockpuppet and tried to get a Request for Arbitration filed under false pretenses, you constantly make personal attacks on me and if Ihonestly tried to list them all I'd be here forever... And still I try to be civil to you, try to explain things to you, tried to give you the benefit of the doubt by agreeing to avoid commenting on your talk page to see if that might help (this was completely voluntary by the way, I'm not under any RfCs and nowhere close to an RfAr or anything else)... You need to grow up and fly straight. Period. Stop the nonsensical excuses. Read the policies. Follow them. LISTEN TO WHAT PEOPLE TELL YOU. Even Slim and Ed aren't going to put up with your shenanigans much longer. ] 15:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

	1- i nnever vandalized ANYTHING, and inthe caseof youruser page , IASKED YOU AQUESTIONm, and you didnt answer, then when i asked again you called it vadnalism. ever consider thatyour wrong?
	2 - you TRIED to be civil to me? WHEN?????? youve been a pain in the ass ever since i got here, always with the insults and sarcasm

	3 - I am not hte one who followed YOU aropund, why do you make the accusations based on what YOU did to me?

	4 - YES i filed an RFC against you, casue you were anbd ARE incurably incivil and frankly your acting like avindictive asshole. there are other users who agree with me on that, and, WE tried to make peace, but you kept right on being as asshole.

	4 - i make some mistakes, and yes , i made a mistake with a VFD.

	5 - how dare yuou tell ME tpo grow up? your constantly actiungimmature, and skirting blocks basd on techincalities. if anyojne should leave anbd grow up, its you. i treat everyoine nicely if they treat me nicely. im very polite to everyone. except that ive lost my patience with you, DreamGuy, i lost my paience with your constant and incurable incivllity MONTHX ago, and even back then i didnt do anything or say anythingf, , and thus was born an unsuccessfull RFC. there will be another,
	] 15:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	to whoever deleted this, its not a personal attack if its EXACTLY what f goes on. dont delete this.] 15:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	==Gabriel/Gavin's 3RR violation on ] on anonymous IP==

	And it's all but certain that ] is ] on an IP address jumping in to revert ] back to the way he had it. The IP's previous edits are ''exactly'' the same topics Gavin started out editing when he got his new name and look like they date back to before he registered the first time, and, come on, what are the odds that someone who hasn't been here since April who wrote on ] would suddenly show up to revert to Gabriel's version? ] 16:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

	WITCH HUNT! thata ll i have to say.] 16:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	:Kindly remove your head from the sand and admit your wrongdoing. The ArbCom will not look kindly on your actions today, but they will look much less kindly on you if you deny what you did. ~~ ''']''' (]/]) 16:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


	:Gabriel, yet again you have been caught violating Misplaced Pages rules of conduct, and yet again you have chosen, when called upon it, to lie and impugn the character of another editor. Here is a to a comment you signed as "Gabriel Simon," while editing anonymously as 69.195.126.19.

	:Slim, I would like to suggest that this to "Otherkin" violates the terms of the agreement under which you and Ed agreed to mentor Gabriel. I'm not sure that this is working. --] 16:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	--I have taken the liberty of copying the conversation above this line to , which has a section documenting all of Gabe's sock puppet accounts. --] 16:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	of course is not working, a;lk this does isget me bloicked over and over and ovber and over and over and pover and over and over and over. how is that helping ANUYTHING??? all it does is serve to annoy the crap out of me, beause the slightest problem makes me go away AGAIN. how is that hleping m,e at akll????? and how is it fair to lock talk pageS?] 16:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


	people actua;lly never do what i requested nicely and then insisntaly, all i wish to have happen is to make that particular asshole go away, and otherleave e in peace. this palce is supposed to be a community of c some kind, wwell, mayube we need a bvillage idiot, but WHY SDOES IT HAVE TO BE ME???????????????] 16:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	:You get blocked over and over and over because you keep making the same mistakes over and over and over. Sadly, that's all there is to it. ] 16:44, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

	==On Intelligent Design==
	Wanted to insert some references but apparantly am unable. Could they be added? Have placed the entire anti-ID section, including my suggestions, here:

	'''Anti-ID'''
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	* by Will Durst on , Posted August 11, 2005
	* by Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D., July 16, 2005.
	* by Sam Harris, , August 10, 2005.
	* by Eugenie C. Scott
	* University of Missouri-Kansas City
	* , February 09, 2005.
	*
	*
	*
	* Robert Wright. Slate. 2001
	* Barbara Forrest. 2000. Originally published in Philo, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall-Winter 2000), pp. 7-29.
	*
	* Jason Rosenhouse. Assistant Professor, Mathematics. James Madison University
	* Chapter 1 of the book ''Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics'' by Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. MIT Press, 2001
	* Massimo Pigliucci. Skeptical Inquirer, September 2001.
	--] 14:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


	==Aposthia==
	I see you voted to delete ] in its recent ]. I've now substantially rewritten the article, removing the dubious POV statements and (I think) sourcing everything. I had to wade through several pages of Googlecruft to get any decent information about it, but it ''is'' out there. The fact that so many of the top Google results are highly biased anticircumcision sites makes it all the more important that Misplaced Pages has an informative and neutral article on the subject. Hopefully you can be persuaded to change your vote! Thanking you, ] 17:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
	:The Talbot reference is indirect from (number 26). I'm not sure on the Misplaced Pages procedure when referring to sources not available online, and don't have a copy of the journal myself. Since Misplaced Pages isn't supposed to restrict itself to its current Internet incarnation, I would think that paper references would be treated just the same, but really I don't know. If it's likely to cause controversy then maybe we should omit it and make a request for better information on the Talk page. ] 17:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	==Please unprotect ] and ]==

	You protected both pages, but if you check the history and talk pages you'll see that Gabriel/Gavin was the only person holding them up. In both cases he was reverting back to what he wanted from a couple of days before. The protect notice says to work it out on the talk page. He's blocked for 48 hours, and there's nothing to work out if he's gone. Heck, and if he's back he doesn't ever work with anyone else, as he's proven time and time again. All the editors opposed his change on Otherkin, and most of his changes were totally opposed on Vampire, the only thing there partially under dispute was a separate mention for people who believed they were vampires instead of just acting like it, which it was agreed to put off until ] hashed it out, since they were the primary article involved. ] 17:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

	== Your user page ==

	If I see that many Blue Bonnets, I immediately think Texas! --] 19:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	== AVD ==

	He doesn't seem to learn, he is again editing ] http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Canada&action=history]

	Anyway, I had thought that Fred Bauder banned AVD for a day for editing the Talk page on that tricolour article but given his subsequent comments it seems I was wrong (so I don't know why AVD was banned for a day) so sorry for my misstatement. ] 20:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	Whoops, you're ahead of me. ] 20:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

	==]==
	If possible, would you mind taking a look at my current disagreement with AladdinSE there? AladdinSE insists that there is a consensus there that you are part of. Thx. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 18:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

	==email==
	Hello, I sent you the e-mail one month ago but I still did not get any reply. I would like to get reply from you.

	--] 19:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
	== Asra Nomani ==
	Could rather make Asra Nomani the main page for this author rather than Asra Q. Nomani, the reason being that users would be searching for Asra Nomani more than Asra Q. Nomani .--] 00:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


	== Great Administration ==

	A Barnstar of Diligence to you as...your work is '''diligent''' and invaluable to Misplaced Pages. ] ] ] 01:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

	]

	== Fucking bitch of a cunt! ==

	Shove it up your ass and burn!

Latest revision as of 03:19, 27 July 2014