User talk:SlimVirgin/History 2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:32, 7 June 2006

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper. — Robert Frost

Don't go

You only let the trolls and bullies win by leaving. FeloniousMonk 05:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't.--Dakota ~ 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't go... if only because i will not have anyone to nominate me for RfA otherwise :( Rockpocket 05:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reassure you that I, and I believe a majority of the ArbCom if not in fact all of us, do NOT welcome MSK or BluAardvark back to Wikipedia; in fact, quite the reverse. I believe those who do are a tiny percentage of Wikipedia's admins, let alone the organisation itself inasmuch as such exists. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no! Slim, stay with us! We've lost one of the very nicest admins in the last few days — we can't afford to lose another of them. AnnH ♫ 09:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Slim, it would be so sad for you to leave. Even though we haven't seen eye to eye all the time--to understate matters--I have learned very much from you. You are a learned editor for whom I have the utmost respect. Please do not leave us we need you. --Drboisclair 09:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hand with thumbs down.jpg

Don't let the trolls win, you're making it too easy for them. Be difficult. — May. 29, '06 [10:51] <freak|talk>

Don't go, if you do it would be one of the worst things to happen to wikipedia Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even so

I do trust linuxbeak implicitly. I hope we can discuss on skype or so sometime soon. Kim Bruning 10:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break

Take a break, but don't go away. :-) Kim Bruning 08:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling less nonconfrontational and smiley prone about this. Don't let it be a victory for questionable Wikipedia factions set out to harass, with their highly suspect methods of action and "communication." Some people are going to answer for this. Time for accountability and sorting out the complicit from the complacent. El_C 09:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is rich coming from El_C aka Pavel Novak, the bourgeois who roleplays a progressive. -Dna4salE 10:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I'm shaken. It's all about being rich or serving the rich for your type. Who is "Pavel Novak" and whose sockpuppet are you? The dark forces of the reaction hover over you like a shadow. El_C 10:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kacha HaChayim. Speaking of dark forces Elsie.. You portray yourself as a socialist revolutionary, yet you're never wavering in your support of SlimVirgin - the single most neoliberal administrator on this project. Why is that? And even after she treats you with the utmost condescension! SV has gotten rid of hundreds of leftwing editors and you cheer her on, which means you're either suffering from some serious cognitive dissonance, or you're a fraud. -Dna4salE 02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are those "hundreds of left-wing editors" (names?)? These are claims you've failed to demonstrate. That I disagree with her politically and that I chastized her over her support of Carr is no reason for me to support her departure here and the manner it took place — that would be politically motivated fraud. You've yet to answer whose sockpuppet you are, nor explain the whole Pavel Novak thing. I await your answers with an especial trepidation. El_C 22:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break, and come back a new person. ;-) -Dna4salE 10:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Ditto. — mark ✎ 10:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC) This is a huge loss for Wikipedia. Few, if any, editors have been more effective advocates of making Wikipedia into a source of accurate, reliable information than Sarah. This brings Wikipedia a step closer to just becoming a social club for internet trolls with no interest in writing an encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 22:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This rhetoric is unhealthy! Anyway, I have a request - could you please come back and help me proof-read this ever-controversial article? Sometimes it is good just to edit/read articles :). RN 22:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think SlimVirgin is going away. She seems like a good editor and from my interactions I have no complaints. However, I've had very limited interaction with her so others complaints may be true. I don't know but they are not really relevant in this case. I truely believe that SV is only bluffing, that it's a bit of an emotional outburst, which is a rather rash. I think as soon as she cools down she will be back. This threat of leaving is a well known phenonmenon and it has served a purpose to make her protest known in the strongest terms, and help to get what she wants in the conflict she is having with other admins. I think this is a classic example of this: http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?GoodBye I note that FloNight has already returned as predicted. So, SV will be back after a break. Just wait and see.Giovanni33 06:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's my prediction as well. Al 06:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope so. -Will Beback 06:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been truffled by Charlie

Charlie has given you some of his famous Solid chocolate truffles! Chocolate truffles taste good, help moods, promote WikiLove and hopefully make your day better. Hope you find the truffles to be tasty, and make sure you enjoy them with a nice tall glass of milk (they're rich)! Have some chocolate & stick around!!! We need good people to stay! --Charlie^{( @CIRL | talk | email )} 14:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case

In case, you have decided to go, please wait for few moments: please touch your heart and think: would it look nice to part in this way? I know our system has several lacunae, but we can surely continue here to realize the best-ever dream of human civilization: to build the sum total of human knowledge. I too disagree with several aspects of our functioning, yet I am continuing as I know that we are the most resilient virtual community, and we shall deliver what we have promised to deliver to the human civilization. Come on, and continue. --Bhadani 17:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was feeling Hungary, and took a piece of Solid chocolate truffles! I am sure that you shall not mind. --Bhadani 17:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the blank user page?

Hi SlimVirgin. What gives? Thanks! --Tom 17:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:ANI#Blu_Aardvark_and_Mistress_Selina_Kyle:_unblocking. RN 18:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't leave

Don't let the trolls win. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was the trolls that got SlimVirgin and FloNight to give up in disgust. IMO it was the fact that their peers, including Jimbo, decided to unblock a pair of disruptive users who apparently harassed them from off-wiki and apparently condoned even deeper and more vicious harassment of them from the same site. I believe the issue that really upsets them is that they feel that by policy, victims of harassment must be consulted prior to re-instatement of the offenders, under any circumstances (e.g. 'mentorship' here). Crum375 20:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If You Can Hack It Out

Your good offices and your humanity, along with those others who then came to assist, persuaded me to hang in. Please consider the importance of such qualities in so potentially volatile a venue as this. That said, WP, while an important asset, is not of necessity the center of all things. Place yourself first. Thanks, again, for your help in the past, and, if you so determine, in future. – Best. Fucyfre 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a voice to the chorus

I formally request that you stay instead of leaving. DS 01:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal

I've been reading the entries at [[1]] and, for what it's worth, as a newbie, I agree with SV's position, whatever components of personal emotion and/or tactic it may comprise. I will watch to see what happens, what she decides, and to draw appropriate conclusions as to how effective WP can, in fact, be in the processes by which it attempts to function in its stated goals. Fucyfre 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I will be a copycat and join the chorus of people asking you to stay, despite the actions of the loathesome trolls at WR and the wildly clueless actions of a certain bureaucrat. I realize that talk is cheap, and I'm not the one dealing with whatever you're being put through, but nonetheless I want to say that I support you, and whatever help I can offer I'm offering. Send e-mail if necessary. --Calton | Talk 04:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it WP:CIVIL. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 21:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to him, he did have some nice words for SV; I've never seen him say anything nice to anyone before. Clearly that's progress. Everyking 09:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Think Also

That there may be need on the part of those more senior at WP to restructure some procedures. I may be new to WP, but I am not new to this sort of problem. It requires addressing. Fucyfre 05:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly right. I agree with you. --Bhadani 11:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let the bastids grind you down

Do you think a cup of tea and a lemon-curd sarnie might be enough to tempt you back? Or am I going to have to open up the custard cream biscuits? Grace Note 06:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Those custard creams sound dangerous! Kim Bruning 10:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Editor Review Commentary (If You Like)

Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperment and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you'll read this

But if you'd drop in MSN sometime, we could probably work this out. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Three barnstars

Since, in over three years of editing on Wikipedia, I have never awarded anyone any Wikipedia:Barnstars, I hereby solemnly award User:SlimVirgin three of them now. This tripleheader award is in recognition of all the critical roles she has always played on Wikipedia. All who agree are urged to sign below. In sincerest admiration, and hoping for a speedy return, IZAK 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

Awarded to SlimVirgin for her defense of Justice on Wikipedia. IZAK 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

Awarded to SlimVirgin for her Wisdom in this regard. IZAK 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar!

The Resilient Barnstar

Awarded to SlimVirgin for her Valor IZAK 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

IZAK 06:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to stay too. It's no fun in the long run taking the burden of evidence without you here ;-) - So please come back. Foreigner 07:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me throw in a little Chai . Take a wikibreak if you need it and come back when ready. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard finding good people to help keep Wikipedia clean and accessable, and it would be a pity to lose you. Evolver of Borg 10:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You deserve praise and encouragement for all your good efforts, maturity, and fairness. Whether or not you decide to come back. This enterprise will fail unless people like you stay with it. --Leifern 10:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT for the most NPOV and anti-troll editor on Wikipedia. I've ordered a vat of Wikihugs, given that I can't email you flowers. JFW | T@lk 11:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I miss you already!- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Bhadani 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support please come back and help keep the scum and villany of Wikipedia Review out of the wiki. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the baby, Faith... or Sarah. Frustration is understandable, and your feelings are valid. We hope that after a bit of rest and reflection, you'll see that we need you too. Ð’?^talk 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. Seriously, though, it'd be quite a loss if you decide to leave permanently. I hope you'll reconsider. Tijuana Brass^E@ 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Come back William M. Connolley 20:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmmm! Cool beans! -- Szvest 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]
Natch. --Ashenai 20:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come baaaaaaaaaaaaack! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O yes! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Illegitimi non carborundum... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, come back! Kuratowski's Ghost 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're a real asset to Wikipedia, and it would be sorely diminished without you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per everything above. 172 | Talk 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. And what Mel said. FeloniousMonk 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hip hip hooray for the barnstars! and I hope you come back soon. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. But, Slim is beyond barnstars, in my opinion, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're all missing you. Pecher ^Talk 22:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hate putting pressure on people, but you know — Wikipedia wouldn't be the same without you! AnnH ♫ 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I want to let you know that I appreciate all the hard work you've done here. I have nothing but the greatest respect and admiration for you. Take a wikibreak and come back refreshed. —Viriditas | Talk 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I know we haven't crossed paths alot on here, but I am always here as support. Always always always. We've lost one terrific admin in the last week. Don't want to make it 2. *hugs* --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You make Wikipedia a better place. Vashti 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't leave. We haven't always agreed but I respect you and would hate to see you driven away. Please stay. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support and please stay. Leaving in anger is never a good solution, and the loss of a lot of great admins this way is terrible. You've done much great work and no respected editor should feel driven out of Wikipedia, period. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ashibaka tock 22:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The kind of support you have gotten says it all. Real editors support you. jbolden1517^Talk 00:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Age hoax?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ah-ni-ku-ta-ni I have contacted professor Fogelson at the University of Chicago about this one. Mooney makes no mention of this. If this is a hoax this is quite offensive. Professor Fogelson only makes mention of the name, not tablets that predate the old testament.

Who were the Ani-Kutani? An Excursion into Cherokee Thought. by Raymond Fogelson in Ethnohistory 31 (1984), pp. 255-263. I want his word on the entry before I contact anyone else.

LoveMonkey 11:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye?

Removed messaged from banned user Zordrac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saladin1970

I have unblocked Saladin1970 to participate in his arbitration case. He is expected to limit editing to arbitration pages and his own user pages. Fred Bauder 13:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

-- Malber (talk • contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

One of life's ironies

Hi Slim,

It sounds crazy, but I was visiting your talk page to discuss a blocking policy I'm thinking of proposing (basically, a partial block that'd stop vandalising IPs from editing articles but allowing them to edit talk pages).

One of the things I admire about you is your emphasis on civility. A lot of "senior" wikipedians don't value civility as much.

When I had enough of incivility while discussing Israel-related articles, I didn't quit, I changed to a topic that wouldn't attract incivility.

I won't say don't go, just look after yourself, and I hope you come back some day soon.

Cheers,

Andjam 13:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it will matter to you much anymore...

Not sure who this is (or whose sock he is), but as you were mentioned by name, thought I'd keep you up to date if you weren't already aware (If you're even still around). [2] See ya (maybe). --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg of Novgorod

Some of your special brand of common sense would be useful here... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a ReveredLeader

Hmmm, meatball:ReveredLeader seems a lot like the (anti)pattern you are encountering. Kim Bruning 01:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five days

Five days without her look like five long years! --Bhadani 10:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In our history of five years, we have seen very few ones like her... Please come back. --Bhadani 10:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user talk page is of limited value

Apparently people are occaisionally removing messages to you, mostly messages that have a negative element to them. Unfortunately that means that trolling and criticism are being treated in the same way. It's going to be difficult for you to get a balanced image of the situation this way. Be sure to check your page history, at least. Kim Bruning 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if she has left us, what she shall derive by wasting her time in seeing history and geography of her page? There is life beyond wikipedia - it is not the ultimate reality of human civilization. I find that certain comments are rather in a bad faith, at least in bad taste. --Bhadani 15:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I am reminded of the words of Sir Winston Churchill: "When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber." There is nothing personal in this - we are higly adept at imputing motives, please do not impute any to me! --Bhadani 15:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parrots? Can somebody pleaes give me another cracker? Btw, I see SlimVirgin is back (or at least never did leave). She made an edit today! Its just a matter of time before her edits extend beyond her user page. This is just a first baby-step. Btw, I agree we should be tolerant of SV's detractors and allow their voice as well. We are all adults here.Giovanni33 20:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse your views too. I never intended to silence the voice of dissent. --Bhadani 08:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back (I hope)

Maybe this welcome back is premature, but hope springs eternal... IronDuke 01:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been refreshing my watchlist and looking eagerly at this page and the user page, but was afraid to jump to (happy) conclusions too soon. Please tell us we're right, Slim. AnnH ♫ 01:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse she was not really leaving. She will come back slowly but surely. She won't admit it yet, but just wait and see until after the arbcom has concluded its decision with the editors she is protesting. After that, no matter what the result, SV will back to normal. I'd be willing to bet on it, or else I'm a Christian! Giovanni33 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The life is coming back! Good news. --Bhadani 08:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I never actually expected SlimVirgin to stay away. She came back to bail out Moshe, which means she'll come back to help other buddies, until at some point she'll have to admit that she's not gone anymore. Al 18:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not going to have to be a Christian now, afterall. :)[3]Giovanni33 19:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Thanks

I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 04:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table fix

If you need a table fix, let me know.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

welcome back

I hope you are indeed back. Zeq 09:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She never left.Giovanni33 14:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see her in "action" again. I am sure that she shall not disappoint us. We all miss you SV. Please be more active at the earliest, please! --Bhadani 15:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay. — Jun. 5, '06 [19:24] <freak|talk>

It is really good to see you back.

--Dakota ~ 19:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from me as well, and don't let those assholes in the wikipedia review let you down. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back as well. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too am glad to see you editing again. Raul654 03:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skype and the art of wiki maintenance

I wonder if you're around on skype atm? Kim Bruning 17:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've got things mostly reconstructed now. It would be really nice if you could communicate with me at your earliest convenience. Kim Bruning 20:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are too kind.

I actually welcome the ban. (helps in getting unedicted). The only sad part about Tony's actions (done out of GF I am sure) is that no one would now bother looking at Homey's action. I have no doubt that if Wikipedia as a whole would oprete fairly and in good faith a person like Homey could not have manipulated Wikipedia so much for the multiple political campaigs he is waging. Clearly more than any other person he turned wikipedia into a battle ground in which he is spreading his soapbox from. Rediculus that this is allowed to continue. Zeq 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw, although I have tons of respect to your view I think you erred on one issue. In the past several months I never "Zeq edits from a strong POV". I always just NPOV anti-israel edits by others. Never onced have I pushed my agenda or Israel agenda (not the same agenda btw:-). I am just horrified how the view that the Jewish people have no right to a home land is propagated in the west via tools like Wikipedia. Zeq 18:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surly you know that my viwes (which are not clear from my edits) are very different from the Israeli goverment viwes. The only place I "push " my POV is inside Israel trying to act on what i belive in(and you know what it is). Zeq 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no not foolish. You are cool. Zeq 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hafrada wall

the link in Israeli West Bank barrier may indeed be "by just another biased article from a group of anti-Barrier campaigners". The point, though, is to show that the term "Hafrada wall" is used. The POV of the link is irrelevent in that respect, all that matters is that it demonstrates usage. When OED cites examples of a term being in use they don't consider the POV of the source, just whether or not the source demonstrates usage. Homey 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice requested

I have 2 problems which seem to be related. User:Antaeus Feldspar volenteers his opinions in a discussion unrelated to his opinions on my user page. His opinions include that I have lied to other editors. So I moved his statements to my user page and begin discussing the validity of his opinions. Discussion His last statement threatens certain actions when "the next RfAr comes" against me. I've asked him more than once to stop his personal attacks. His abrasive manner is not confined to me alone, but to every (at least most) pro-scientology editors in the articles. He uses abrasive edit summaries that aren't very specific such asrevert (username) POV when dealing with pro-scientology editors. Yet he is remarkably civil to those persons who he agrees with. Sometimes he just quits communicating with pro-scientology editors except for reversions and accompanying edit summaries of an abrasive nature. He is the most extreme and difficult to deal with anti-editor. But several of the editors treat pro-scientology editors similarly. Wikipediatrix rarely personally attack as he does, but she refuses to communicate and reverts with somewhat similar edit summaries. Is there a process which deals with this kind of thing? I don't want to try to stop Feldspar or Wikipediatrix, I want to work with them. Terryeo 03:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to my slimmest of virgins

We will all mith you, darling Quim..I mean Schlim. I always wondered...are you really as slim as you say you are Thlim? Maybe we can meet down town after, you know it all blows over, and who knows, maybe have a wee drinky poo or two, and get to know each other a little better. You know..I've always wondered, well how it would feel to have your sweet quimburger rolled around me wee little winkie. Love ya! me and my tiny wee thingie Bishonen

@@ Line 272: / Line 272: @@
 I have 2 problems which seem to be related.  [[User:Antaeus Feldspar]] volenteers his opinions in a discussion unrelated to his opinions on my user page.  His opinions include that I have lied to other editors.  So I moved his statements to my user page and begin discussing the validity of his opinions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Terryeo#Feldspar.27s_statements_from_my_User_Page Discussion]  His last statement threatens certain actions when "the next RfAr comes" against me.  I've asked him more than once to stop his personal attacks.  His abrasive manner is not confined to me alone, but to every (at least most) pro-scientology editors in the articles.  He uses abrasive  edit summaries that aren't very specific such as''revert (username) POV'' when dealing with pro-scientology editors.  Yet he is remarkably civil to those persons who he agrees with.  Sometimes he just quits communicating with pro-scientology editors except for reversions and accompanying edit summaries of an abrasive nature.  He is the most extreme and difficult to deal with anti-editor.  But several of the editors treat pro-scientology editors similarly.  Wikipediatrix rarely personally attack as he does, but she refuses to communicate and reverts with somewhat similar edit summaries.  Is there a process which deals with this kind of thing?  I don't want to try to stop Feldspar or Wikipediatrix, I want to work with them. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 03:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
+==to my slimmest of virgins==
+::We will all mith you, darling Quim..I mean Schlim. I always wondered...are you really as slim as you say you are Thlim? Maybe we can meet down town after, you know it all blows over, and who knows, maybe have a wee drinky poo or two, and get to know each other a little better.  You know..I've always wondered, well how it would feel to have your sweet quimburger rolled around me wee little winkie. Love ya! me and my tiny wee thingie [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]]