User talk:SlimVirgin/History 2

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27

I think IAMthatIAM would also have been blockable under the remedies of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. Fred Bauder 22:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being as aggressive as I would be. Fred Bauder 16:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on my objection to this user name[2].--Dakota ~ ° 21:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is sort of, it's my ex's if you formalized it and added his first name. It may not be blockable but it makes me so unconfortable in that that surmane is uncommon and so close.--Dakota ~ ° 21:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal but proof of a sort and easily accessible on the internet, old old web page. [3]--Dakota ~ ° 21:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Thank you from the bottom of my heart and forgive that ugly webpage. Wipe if off if you will it has a friends email address in the string she created it a few years ago. She is a geocities freak--Dakota ~ ° 21:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly WP:NPOV to place a link from one of the most anti palestinian organizations that exists on the Palestinian people page, please see Talk:Palestinian_people#Middle_East_Forum_link. Arniep 03:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't a dispute tag have at some point to be backed by substantive claims? I'm sorry to bother you with this again, but Ultramarine seems to think he can invent whatever he pleases (see Talk:R. J. Rummel and the links there made) and insert tags on that basis.

Thank you for letting me blow off steam. Septentrionalis 04:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlimVirgin: I am not making much headway with User:Ckessler at Talk:Shlomo Carlebach#Allegations, yet again. I have placed this message on her page, and she is going for mediation, but I have yet to see where.

Hi Ckessler: You are on the borderline of breaking the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule in the Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach article, see [4] I do not wish to revert you a third time today. Twice is enough for me, I have no choice but to wait another 24 hours to do so. You are treating hearsay and gossip as if they were the legal equivalants of allegations in a duly constituted court of law. A number of admins who know something about this subject will be contacted, to advise how we should proceed. Your refusal to discuss to resolve this matter on the article's talk page is disappointing.

Your input into this matter would be highly appreciated. Thanks. IZAK 09:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also add your comments at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-23 Shlomo Carlebach. Thank you. IZAK 10:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I placed a {{npa}} template on User_talk:Alienus, primarily in response to this edit where he bashes AnnH. He is removing it. Since I don't really want to get into an edit war with him (obviously, we've crossed paths before), can I ask you to take a look and restore the warning, if you believe it is appropriate?

I put the warning there because I believe this user has a pattern of engaging in personal attacks, and so I want to start documenting that he's been warned. If he removes the warnings, that won't happen.

As always, if you think I'm off base, please feel free to just tell me that instead. Nandesuka 12:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He spat at me two months ago (I'm not joking — take a look at this) after I politely told him that he had violated 3RR but that I wasn't going to report him (see earlier on the same page)! And he has been extraordinarily uncivil and sarcastic on the abortion talk page recently. AnnH ♫ 13:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you look at the recent history of Talk:Robert_Steadman, and these two sections on Alienus's talk page, he is making insinuations about Jayjg's honesty. For the record, the sockpuppets that Jay blocked had actually voted the same way as Jay! AnnH ♫ 13:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a lot that can be done about a user deleting material from his talk page. The only time I try to insist on posts staying on a talk page is during a block so that other admins can see why the user was blocked. In this case, I'd put a note on his talk page (I would leave a note, rather than use the template), warning that he's likely to be blocked for disruption if the personal attacks continue, and that his deletion of warnings from his talk page isn't casting him in a good light. I'd be willing to be the one to block him if you're involved in a content dispute with him, because I haven't edited with him (as I recall anyway), so let me know if it happens again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's not a lot you can do about a user deleting material from his talk page, and I recently tried to discourage another editor from reposting messages to User:Pro-Lick, who was deleting them as vandalism. I recall that David Gerard said on one of the admin noticeboards that when an editor deletes a message from his talk page, you know that he has seen it, and it's still there in the history for evidence, so to keep on posting it serves no purpose. (Of course, it's still frightfully rude to delete it!) Hope all is well with you. AnnH ♫ 20:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, almost as rude as talking about someone behind their back.

Hi, Slim. We did meet a while back, though you've probably forgotten because it wasn't all that eventful. The context was a dispute with a guy named Loxley, over his attempt to inject his anti-Dennett POV everywhere. He wound up leaving, although I did have to "take one for the team" by getting blocked myself. You had tried to get involved but gave up.

Anyhow, if you want to discuss me, a good place to do it is my user page. Much more honest. Alienus 23:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The irony, as it were, is terribly thick here tonight. Nandesuka 00:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens "discuss me" and "leave spurious warnings" are different things. You would do well to learn the difference. Alienus 02:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings weren't spurious, as you well know. If you don't want to be warned for making personal attacks, then stop making personal attacks. Nandesuka 03:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd sooner stop beating my wife. Alienus 04:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ur right - i was in a bit of a hurry so i just wrote public domain as licence - which is not entirely correct.

The comic is of course copyrighted though the author consented to the publication, as you know it was publicised (see publication in a legal context). The publication rights have not been transferred to the local university-newpaper but stayed within the author who consented to the act of publication and never revoked that status. The status certainly cannot stay at public domain - though i don't have the time right now to change all the appropriate flags for the pic.

Hi Slim,

Is this a valid user name: [5] ? Zeq 09:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mullins.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're willing to set it up, I would suggest an RfC against Lumiere and his various incarnations. He's just wasting everyone's time and he's been told that many times. At some point no article contributions and endless arguing is just disruption. I think we're long past that point here. Thanks for dealing with it for so long. - Taxman ^Talk 14:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently he's not willing to listen to the consensus against his actions. His responses to you on his talk page are straw men. He concedes the policies are basically sound, but that he needs to polish them up before he can use them. I agree you've been doing well handling this, but currently more time is being wasted. I urge setting up an RfC soon. - Taxman ^Talk 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I convey my greetings to you on my completion of one year as a wikipedian, and I am sure that we shall continue to build the sum total of human knowledge. And, I shall surly feel “sad” if you fail to reply on my talk page. --Bhadani 14:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with the 3RR claim filed by me against another editor.

In response to your mention in the Admin area that my version wasn't getting support, it was my understanding that providing reliably sourced citations validated the inclusion of facts in the appropriate areas. As you can see from the talk page, Viriditas requested citations, and I provided them for the additional information that I included. I felt that Humus' response to simply delete the cited information was inappropriate.

Regardless, thanks again.

Sincerely, Lokiloki 01:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin:

I am not planning on making any more posts anywhere on wikipedia for a long time. I would like to ask that you please hide this, or if that is not allowed to please consider moving it to some other place. If you don't want to do it right away, please consider doing it at somepoint in the future, after enough time has gone by that you are confident I really do not plan on coming back into this universe any more to cause trouble. In my real life, I have made some people very mad at me. Please try to believe I am not asking you move that for any disingenuous reason. I will leave now and quit causing trouble. Sorry for being obnoxious. TroiS6 Mr. Slimvirgin: I also wanted to tell you one other thing. Only after I created that one account, said some things in a talk channel, and then decided I didn't like the name, and so changed it and then said some more things... only then later did I start reading about the rules of this game, and learned that people often create muliple accounts for unwholesome reasons. It was never my intention to deceive anyone. It hadn't even occured to me that people would do that. That is why I so quickly admitted to having created two accounts. There were no shenanigans -- everything I told you was the truth. Sorry for being so naive.

Exellent detective work! *Applause*--inks^T 04:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I'm sick of this, and it's only when people start running round while a discussion is still ongoing that I'm inclined to start shooting edits on sight. If he's pledged to stop in the meantime, then I've no need to be reverting him. Ambi 04:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SlimVirgin. So many people register every day on wikipedia, some stay here just for a day or two ([6], [7], [8]), some for a month, and then are not seen again. I just noticed that this week you completed 500 days on wikipedia. Congratulations on reaching this milestone! Since the time I have been here, I've always found you to be a very active and committed member, a real asset to wikipedia. Please accept this token of sincere appreciation from my side. Hoping to completely leaving the past aside, and apologizing from the bottom of my heart for hurting you in the past, I look forward to collaborating with you on so many things, like animal rights in future. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlimVirgin,

Can you unprotect Newroz now. I think a consensus has been reached (a few days ago). Newroz was included as a subsection in Norouz, and a link to the Kurdish celebration of Newroz. All transliterations of Norouz will be redirected to Norouz. See Possible version for Norouz on the Norouz talk page and Talk:Newroz#Conclusion.3F on the Newroz talk page. Diyako has agreed to this (if Newroz is spelled Newroz in the Kurish page), which is the case, and the other two protagonists Sina Kardar has not been active on Wikipedia for 5 days, and Kashayar Karimi has moved on. -- Jeff3000 15:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much :) -- Jeff3000 20:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admire the tone with which you are dialogueing with Lumiere... it was not something I was quite able to do.

If you do take any official action, please let me know, I did battle with Lumiere on the Transcendental Meditation page and would like to participate.

peace, Sethie 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So simply "editing" a page and returning it to a prior version (as he did on the 1st and 2nd reverts) is not an actual revert, even if it returns to an exact prior version? That's interesting to know... that means people can simply "edit" other users' contributions and in the process delete them, and that won't be counted as a revert... even if it is returned to an exact same state? ..."he deleted a section added (I believe) by Lokiloki (an edit, not a revert)"... Wow. So deleting new added content is not considered a revert? That surely seems an inaccurate reading of the revert rule. Lokiloki 22:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

elements cross-posted

Well, erm, I would disagree with you on the suggestion that "an involved admin can adminster blocks as appropriate"; surely that runs contrary to the entire point of AN/I and so on, asking other, non-involved sysops to carry out sysop actions? :-)

I wasn't threatening to block people for a content dispute, but for massively inappropriate behaviour on the part of people who really, really should know better. I mean, these people wrote the rules, for heavens's sake.

I completely agree about compromise wording being the best outcome, and the one to work towards; that it why I am, ahem, disappointed to see people prejudicing said work, and "jumping the gun". Sadly, I'm now off on holiday, and no doubt this will all be decided, one way or another (and probably the "wrong" way ;-)) before I return.

James F. (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before reverting, read the Talk page, and discuss. To call something LaRouche without evidence to the same is not enough. I want proof that this edit promotes LaRouche. I do not see that it does. If your interested in this issue, give us your two cents on the talk page. Thank You. --Northmeister 00:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-worded HK's edit. I fully understand outsourcing and privatization and how it affects the United States today. Outsourcing government services (especially military and intelligence) is a form of privatization of those said services and does not resemble the out-sourcing in regards to private jobs. In America, we call such 'privatization', elsewhere it is more often called 'corporatization'. Anyway, I removed your concerns from my edit, and also added words to address what the conference was about. I welcome any comments, but let's not get into a reverting war over this. Let's discuss it and see where that goes first. Thanks. --Northmeister 01:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of your recent edits to the page. You have a point about the quote, although it does show a sentiment that is strong in the USA regarding most recent events of privatization. --Northmeister 01:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your question with several quotes and cites on that page for your observation. Thanks. --Northmeister 23:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blocking him. I tried reasoning with him months ago and then got out of it because it was useless. I've been silently watching from the sidelines, and you have done the right thing. Thank you. - grubber 02:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I've indef blocked User:Gabrielsimon and User:Gavin the Chosen per your block of User:Gimmiet for consistency, and have left a request on Otherkin's talk requesting vigilance. Let me know if you want me to change anything, I stand ready to assist as needed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 09:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For doing the Right Thing re: Quadell. (Shame about Gabriel Simon, I really liked him for all his inability to edit co-operatively.)

Rich Farmbrough 23:37 26 March 2006 (UTC).

Greetings, SlimVirgin!
I'd heard that you'd left us but I see you've made edits today. Glad to know you're still here. PedanticallySpeaking 17:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am frankly shocked by your attempt to force the inclusion of this completely non WP:NPOV link in Palestinian people. The Middle East Forum has consistantly shown pro Israeli bias and Pipes himself has said that there should be no Palestinian state. An article on a website founded by someone who said that cannot be appropriate in an article on Palestinians. Arniep 00:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we should try to avoid extremes of bias especially where a source may have a vested interest in denigrating a subject as is the case there. Similarly I would not include any articles created by pro muslim groups on Jewish history pages. Arniep 00:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, academics can still have bias, including race based bias. You just have to read Daniel Pipes' article to see that his neutrality in regards to Arabs or Muslims has been questioned by many. Arniep 00:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnie, please direct the discussion to the article Talk: page, where everyone can read it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and stay WP:CIVIL Thanks Arniep 01:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? That request could hardly have been more WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's back and I don't know if I can infinite this one.[9] and [10] --Dakota ~ ° 00:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this I just note the edit summary.[11]--Dakota ~ ° 00:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You left a note on the RfP for Union of Concerned Scientists about sources. I think that all the sources that I used that were not "reliable sources" for factual content, I clearly expressed as opinion. For example, it is perfrectly acceptable to say "UCS received a Ideological Spectrum Rating of "1" (Radical Left) from the Capital Research Center. [12]". It is a factual statement, it is sourced and it clearly states who holds the opinion. It is like saying "The Earth is Flat according to the [Flat Earth Society]". This is NPOV. Your comment that the source is unreputable is now being used to wholesale delete a number of edits. Please review this and the NPOV section on opinion. Thanks! --Tbeatty 04:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the lovely threat about the three reversion rule on the Talmud page. However, I am indeed well aware of Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the policy. However, I must say, while you might not agree with the individual's statements on the page, he was editing in good faith. Throwing large "here is a troll!" posters all over the page and then blanking it in the middle of the discussion (there was NOT "broad consensus" about the topic) only detracts from Wiki's intent. Look, I don't agree with Zadil's point of view at all, however, calling his edits "trolling" and merely erasing what is his legitimate right of discussion only adds to bad blood.

To put it simply- accusing this individual of trolling and blanking of the talk page en-masse does a disservice to all of Wikipedia. Please take this as a civil attempt at discussion, but if neccesary I will continue to put back the good-faith edits that were erased wantonly- wanton page blanking, after all, doesn't fall under the 3RR. Cheers indeed. Daniel Davis 08:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion of your vandalism might be that it's not "simple"- you might consider your vandalism to be lovely and complex, a thing of great artistic beauty. The wonderous pasty whitespace indeed has the bearing of cleanliness, which might be taken as artistic in a different context. However, on Wikipedia, taking a big ole whitewash of paint and erasing an entire talk page because you don't agree with the sentiments of a poster on it, well that's about as simple as vandalism gets. I can guarantee you that if I were to hop onto the Grand Canyon page and replace the entire talk section with blank whitespace because I feel that clay dirt isn't getting the respect it deserved, it would recieve much the same treatment- because blanking of an entire page, especially without leaving an edit summary, IS simple vandalism. Daniel Davis 08:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, I find your attitude disheartening. You make the assumption that everyone who doesn't agree with you is somehow ignorant and hasn't "read" the policies? I assure you, I already read them and indeed I follow them to a tee (which, you will note, has kept me from reverting the hideous troll images put there). Just because I don't agree with your definition of "simple vandalism" doesn't mean that I haven't somehow "read" the wikipedia guidelines. On top of that, shoving a page discussion into an archive while said discussion is still ongoing in an attempt to stifle the conversation of the page is very, very bad faith. Shame on you, Slimvirgin. *wags finger* Daniel Davis 08:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey slim, I just thought I would notify you that User:87.80.82.116 seems to be adding links to the same two books in numerous articles, and is doing little else. I'm not sure but I think he might basically be adding advertisments to these books as I've recently heard of other new editors doing a similar thing.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Herschelkrustofsky seems to be violating his sanctions by editing the "synarchism" article. He is also trying to get the article protected to prevent anyone else from editing it. Could you please take a look? Thanks. 172 | Talk 14:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user:Zmmz has constantly reverted any reference to the Parthian Empire being influenced by Hellenism, which is completly oppostional to any mainstream historian and indeed common sense and logic, and instead adds "secularism" which makes no sense in the context he adds it in. When I tell him that it doesn't make any sense he keeps saying the same thing. I have spent half the day arguing with him and another editor on the talk page and despite providing evidence and sources that indicate he is mistaken he continues to write the same thing occasionally with something complely irrelvevent (last time it was that Ashkenazi Jews are decended from a Sythian tribe), I am becomming increasingly frustrated and have reached the conclusion that Zmmz is literally insane. The discussion is under Parthia and Hellenism on the talk page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep bugging you with this article but there are several editors that have repeatedly added this passage-

In Israel, conditions for Persian Jews are not much better as they are classified as Mizrahi Jews, hence facing continued social discrimination. Earning gaps continue to persist [11] and political Mizrahi struggles for gaining equal rights continue to endure(example). A CNN broadcast on April 16 2005 reported "ethnic discrimination, of which the victims are mostly Ethiopian children and children of Mizrahi origins" [12], and in 2006, such discriminations led Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to sharply criticize what he called the "ethos of proportionality, of equality and of discrimination against Mizrahi Jews."[13] In the words of prominent Israeli sociologist Alek Epstein: "How many Mizrahi Jews are to be found in the judicial, economic or media elites? Today's elite is the same old elite; the only difference is that it loses in elections."[14]

The sources they provide do not support some of their claims, and their first source seems to be a student editorial or somthing so I'm not sure that is reliable enough as a source. On a seperate note I should apoligize for calling the other user insane, it was unneccessary hyperbole and I actually have resolved the conflicts with both editors.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user is being uncivil and abusive [13] toward other users who disagree with him on Talk:Persian Jews. I just saw that User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg has called another editor "literally insane" on your talk page.[14] I must say that I'm rather surprised that such obvious personal attack has been overlooked since you are an administrator. --ManiF 06:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An outside comment, ManiF and Moshe are both on the blacklist in #vandalism-wp-en

ManiF on blacklist, "Autoblacklist: 3rr vio at Iranian peoples", Expires 13:21:47 31-Mar-2006 UTC Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg on blacklist, "Autoblacklist: 3rr", Expires 20:53:50 29-Mar-2006 UTC

⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on talk. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the territories were officially annexed, save East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights Law (חוק רמת הגולן) of 1981 intentionally avoided the word annexation. This needs to be made more clear, as the sentence can be seen to be refering soley to East Jerusalem (correct), or also, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Hope this helps. El_C 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the wrong edit summary for the above. At any rate, I removed the incorrect passage. El_C 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I just translated most of the חוק רמת הגולן as Golan Heights Law. If you get a chance, please help link it wherever pertinent and/or copyed. I have to get going now. Bye. El_C 21:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlimVirgin: I have received the following request concerning Rabbi Yaakov Meidan:

Rav Meidan, now a Rosh Yeshiva in Yeshivat Har Etzion, recently requested that his name be spelled in English publications as "Yaaqov Medan." As you can imagine, this spelling garners much fewer Google hits than when spelled with a k. Should his article, and all mentions of him, be changed to "Yaaqov" in deference to him as a self-identifying entity, or not? I'm not familiar enough with WP:NC to know the answer. Thanks, DLand 18:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Input is welcome. IZAK 20:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, SlimVirgin! Keep up the good work :) Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for blocking him, but couldnt you like permanently block him, I have seen loads of users indefinately blocked for attacks such as those, regards Superdude99 11:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [15][reply]

Hello Slim,

I thank you for giving me that rule of I was not aware, but, did you looked at least the the user who was reverting my changes did the same thing? All was ok until he came there, that measn that we gave the official figures of Canada, 131,000, and we wrote the estimations of 400,000. Of these changes everybody agreed, and we arrived at the common idea to let it on that way. I suggest you to contact the other Romanian user that participated to our agreement. The user who was changing that he gave the figures of mixed and single ancestry, but no article of an ethnic group on wikipedia, (ex. Poles, Russians, Italians) does represents their figures on that way, so I think it would be wise to do like the others, right? And please trust me that I will not let him to edit what we all decided and if he continues, I will contact the other Romanian administrators to do something. Thanks a lot ! Regards, NorbertArthur 30 March 2006

Hi, I was just over at Rms125a@hotmail.com's RFC, and I noticed that you'd endorsed with the comment "Very difficult user", but you'd placed the endorsement under the (so-far blank) Response section instead of endorsing the summary just above. I assumed it was an error, and thought you'd like to know. - dharmabum 22:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SV, would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Extending_the_WP:NPA_policy? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the mindless reverting. There's little support for your position at Israeli-occupied territories, so the reverting is simply disruptive. As for Ben Dunkelman, your insinuation that imply that I "plagiarize phrases from the internet" is simply false. Please do no remove well sourced material from the article. Many thanks, Regards, Huldra

Stop quoting my messages to you back word for word. It's childish. As for your plagiarism, I've put an example of it on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd make you aware of the existence of User:Quadell/remedy. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]