User talk:Dscos/archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

August 2004[edit]

Vandalism Comment[edit]

You made a comment on my discussion page warning me not to vandalize articles. I was not aware that I had done such a thing. Could you please specify which article you were refering to? Thank you! 02:26, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I really don't remember. What's likely happened is that you were viewing a warning intended for someone previously using your IP address. If you weren't aware, IP addresses are not always exclusive, and depending on your Internet Service Provider, it is possible for multiple users to use the same IP address. See the notice on the bottom of anonymous user talk pages:
This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki[edit]

Thank you for protecting. I would however appreciate if next time you would not choose a version for protection that is justified with "an edit war? BRING IT ON, my little monkey". [1] Please notify me at my user page in case you reply as I do not watch user talk pages. Get-back-world-respect 00:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid it's not my duty or right to pick the right version. Admins are generally not supposed to "endorse" any particular revision. I'm just following the rules. See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#How. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I know it is not your duty to pick the right version. I however think that in such cases at least a neutrality dispute note should be added. And could you please fulfill your duty and protect wikipedia from vandals who ignore not only the three revert rule but also the policy not to attack others personally? TDC was already blocked once, now he even chooses inappropriate language at the page that is meant for mediation because of his conduct: [2]. Get-back-world-respect 01:58, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I'd just like to note, I really disagree with protecting George W. Bush. I think that it's important to have pages that have a lot of current and fast changes going on open for editing. I think this edit war is stupid and likely to be ongoing, and that protection isn't going to stop it - going to mediation or RfC will, but we all but have explicit POV warriors going on here. I'm loathe to let POV warriors effectively stop the development of pages like that, especially near-permanantly as seems likely to happen if protection of these pages goes on. Snowspinner 00:19, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • Snowspinner, I respect you and all, but this has gotten out of hand. There have been revert wars going on in regard to this article for nearly two weeks. We are an encyclopaedia, and as such, our primary goal is to present information. Correct, NPOV, unbiased information. And the information in this article has been changing every 2 minutes recently. That makes us look unreliable and not trustworthy as a source of information. This needs to be resolved before we can open the page, IMO. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hi. Thanks for changing that image to .png. Note: To delet image pages, clicking on the delete tab deletes only the comment page. Image:DistributionCoconutCrab.jpg is still there until you delete the image itself at the botom in the image history (deleting the latest version deletes all). I fell for that trap myself a few times. -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


They is is not acceptable. The singular "they/their" form has not yet gained suffecient acceptance in formal writing to use it on Wikipedia. Please do not use it on Wikipedia. If you make that edit to a main page template after this warning, you will be blocked from editing.

Are you kidding? Singular "they" is used all over Wikipedia. I don't believe Wikipedia has an official pronoun policy.

If it's vandalism to change "he or she" to "they", then it would also be vandalism to change "they" to "he or she", and there are dozens of articles on Wikipedia that use singular "they".

  • Singular they/their is incorrect, and articles that use them need to be fixed. It's poor grammar. Bottom line. Do not do it. blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not have any pronoun policy. It's not your place to make judgements about "poor grammar". You say changing "he or she" to "they" is vandalism, and you say the opposite change is fixing... That's not the spirit of Wikipedia. No one made you the arbiter of pronouns. The articles that use singular "they" are not "incorrect" and they don't need to be "fixed".
  • I disagree. Singular they/their has been used by educated people in a formal register for a long time. In fact, I have a copy of a British passport application that uses it in that sense. I prefer it sometimes and intend to keep using it. Grammatical rules are fluid and prescriptivists who think they are not can have a stifling effect on discussions and even distort people's perceptions of some groups within a society based on some perceived error in the way they speak. For an encyclopaedic style, all that matters is whether a significant number of educated, native speakers would find a particular usage acceptable. Proscriptions on split infinitives, terminating sentences with preposition and other poor grammar are for another age. Gest 09:19, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WTF?? I think you've got the wrong man.[edit]

Did you address a message to me today accusing me of valdalism, etc? If so, then you must be sorely mistaken.

I haven't made a broad, "vandalistic" edit in several months (they have all since been reverted as I have learned the rules of the boards).

Recently my only edits have been to the following articles:

1. Fidel Castro (adding a single external link from Freedom House and had a bitter political argument with another user on the DISCUSSION page--hardly a crime).

2. Robert Mugabe (added an external link to Freedom House report)

3. Rios Montt (the article is currently locked due to an edit war between myself and 172, among others, but I am involved in an open-ended talk on the DISCUSSION page about how best to balance the article. I am attempting to make it more NPOV and less like a partisan hate-piece against Rios Montt, the School of the Americas, and President Reagan.)

I don't know who is taking their beef with me to you, and I fail to see how I have overstepped any wiki boundaries about the editing process. Read these pages and you will see that this is all a mistake.

Please respond whenever you can;


  • I really don't remember. What's likely happened is that you were viewing a warning intended for someone previously using your IP address. If you weren't aware, IP addresses are not always exclusive, and depending on your Internet Service Provider, it is possible for multiple users to use the same IP address. See the notice on the bottom of anonymous user talk pages:
This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.
  • Sorry for any confusion. :-) blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • But if it was today, then it couldn't have been me. I haven't been on the Wikipedia except for right now, checking my talk page. Hmm. blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:00, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Same thing happened to me, but the IP address displayed didn't even match mine.


Hiya. I noticed you voted against Geogre's adminship nomination. Purely out of personal curiosity, might I ask why? Thanks —Kate | Talk 16:31, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

  • Well, firstly, I feel he's too "subversive" (for lack of a better word) in regards to his opinions on numerous aspects of the project and how it is run. I don't want to support someone that might endeavour to get abilities only to try to fuck things up or try to revolutionise something. Secondly, I don't like a lot of his reasoning, especially his recent reasons for opposing Snowspinner's RfA nom. All in all, I just don't feel comfortable at all with him being an admin, bottom line. blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
But, I thought admins were just "janitors". How will the ability to block or revert allow geogre to "try to revolutionise something"? Or are you saying that admins are more than just janitors? -- orthogonal 14:19, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Not right now, but thanks anyway. I'll see you later; I think I'll be on tonight. Ooh, also, take a look at the screencaps I've added to a lot of can find them in user contributions. Coronation Street is probably ready for FAC now. Mike H 00:28, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Change of Plans[edit]

I am not moving Friday...I'm moving the day after tomorrow. Mike H 22:34, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC) ...w00t! Well, good luck, my friend. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I remembered to break the tags on my most recent three. I was about to head to the pump to propose changing the instructions to have people put the tags at the bottom of the article so they don't show up in the 'reason' edit box by default, and save us the extra step. Niteowlneils 01:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Cool, cool. Btw, though, I don't like that idea, not really. But good thinking, I suppose. blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:18, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: "arbitration/Rex071404"[edit]

Please take note, yesterday, I posted my version of the facts on this issue as per the page's instructions: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence."

However, tonight, Neutrality has twice deleted my statement from that page and instead moved it to the "discussion" page.

I am trying my best to defuse the tense dynamic between Neutrality an myself, but I am at a loss as to what to do.

For example, Neutrality is again jumping all over my edits on John Kerry and deleted/reversed me me multiple times tonight wihtout discussion. I have left copious notes on that talk page explaining my edits, but Neutrality dos not dialog with me.

I really would appreciate some guidedance on getting Neutrality to give me some breathing room.

Also, please take note, although I am feeling very pressed againg by Neutrality, I am not reverting to my intial method of snide commentary.

Since Snowspinner chastized me several days ago with a 24hr ban, I have reconsidered and am avoiding harsh statements. That being the case, when can I expect Neutrality to be advised to leave me be and not be so agressive to me? Rex071404 01:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, Neutrality can be a bit stubborn sometimes. You can try to raise the issue on Neutrality's talk page if you haven't already. You can list the article on Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Peer review to let other users comment on the debate. Or if you really think Neutrality is acting in bad faith and/or contrary to Wikipedia policy, you can open begin a dispute resolution process by listing him on Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. That's my best advice. By the way, not to be nitpicky, but I'm in the mood to correct people's spellings tonight :-P... dialog -> dialogue, guideance -> guidance, chastized -> chastised. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I'm sick and tired of nonsense rules. The "delete" is included automatically if it's already there. I'm not going to waste my time to remove it. You can read what's there just as easily with it or without it. Thank you for the information, which I will ignore. RickK 05:35, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Image deletions[edit]

Hi Blankfaze, User:SirJective/Image entries without image description pages includes a couple of images where you had deleted the associated image description page, e.g. Image:Cow and calf thumbnail.jpg. You may want to check some of the entries to see if the image should be deleted as well or the description page restored. --- User:Docu

  • Yeah, I know, I just recently discovered that deleting the image page doesn't delete the images, just the description page. I don't like that system! Anyhow, I'm just now getting around to going back and redoing it all. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    Don't worry, happened to me as well. ;-) -- User:Docu


Discussion moved to Template talk:Spoiler.OwenBlacker 08:56, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)


Sorry 'bout the Navaranthas thingamabob. It looked like nonsense to me. Thanks for the heads-up! - Lucky 6.9 22:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


If you want to change the style of templates, please go to Template:Message box instead of tirelessly reverting the templates. Thanks. --Cantus 23:27, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Support appreciated[edit]

Thanks for your support! By the way, we use the same wallpaper. --Cantus 03:58, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Rios Montt[edit]

Please unprotect the Rios Montt article. I was adding references as Sam Spade came along and started making a nuisance out of himself. 172 04:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Sorry, 172, but you've reverted that article at least 5 times in less than 48 hours. There's an edit war going on, and all parties involved need to discuss things on the talk page and hammer out a COMPROMISE. blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • There's no reasoning with these users. The anon IP user "ANTI-COMMIE" and Trey Stone are a couple of partisan vandals and there's no sense talking to Sam Spade, who evades any serious discussion and instead starts preaching and ranting. I might as well give up and let them much up the article as much as they want. 172 04:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Who exactly is evading serious discussion. Come to [[Talk:Efra%EDn_R%EDos_Montt]] and get some work done, 172. Sam [Spade] 05:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New Era University[edit]

Yeah, as I said on my talk page, I'm new and I have just received clarification on the proper use of delete and vfd, which you'd have seen on my talk page. Actually, not sure how you missed it... -- Yitzhak 15:29, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions[edit]

You have protected the page on the wrong version. Both netoholic and myself have reverted the article 3 times. Mintguy (T) 22:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Why do you think the election results need to be advertized for longer than a week? Also why do call this well-reasoned removal of a stale notice "vandalism", complete with a threat to block me? Please explain your actions and threats. © 21:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • First of all, I never called your edit vandalism. Show me where I did. You can't. Secondly, I threatened to block you because you are being disruptive. Thirdly, the notice should stay in because there is no good reason to remove it yet, and Guanaco is of the opinion that it should be there, and I trust his judgement. blankfaze | (беседа!) 21:55, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The only thing that is disruptive here are your and Guanaco's uncalled for reversions. Your only defense for keeping the notice is because Guanaco wants it there. You should really think for yourself. The notice has been there for a week and takes up extra space. © 22:01, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Say what you will but the threat stands. If you want to make constructive edits to Wikipedia, then you are encouraged to. But we have no place for users who make purely disruptive edits. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:05, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This account looks very much like a sock puppet/troll. Its second edit was to replace Template:Substub with {{delete}}. I don't strongly feel that the AC notice should be there, but there is no reason to remove it yet. I hope "©" becomes a useful contributor, but I doubt they will. Guanaco 22:14, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

George W. Bush[edit]

It is a policy violation for you to protect a page in which you are involved in an edit war. You in fact have been involved in this very conflict yourself. [3] Do not make me report this. VV 23:50, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I am not at all involved in this latest edit war. Admittedly, I have been minorly involved in a dispute over this article in the past. I do not care at all which one of you is right or wrong. I am just tired of the two of you discussing your points of conflict in edit summaries of revertions rather than on the TALK PAGE. Do as you please as far as "reporting" this, but I am being totally objective and UNinvolved here. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:53, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The revert you made was over the exact same conflict we are now having, not some unrelated past edit. VV 00:00, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Wait. YOU MEAN THIS IS THE SAME CONFLICT AS BEFORE? That's terrible! Well in that case this REALLY REALLY needs to be protected, as this has been going on for weeks! blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:55, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Maybe it does need to be protected. But you should recuse yourself from doing it. VV 00:01, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looking at your userpage[edit]

Nice userpage. Also, you have a livejournal too? cool Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:54, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not guilty[edit]

Dear Blankfaze, a message from you somehow reached me telling me to stop vandalizing entries. As I am a anonymous user and only read things here, I find this quite hard to understand. I guess you have identified me via my IP-adress, so I hope you can see that I'm not doing more than viewing pages on thanks, anonymous user


Sounds interesting to me, thanks. [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 00:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) (brettz9 AT yahoo dot com)

Consider this note dropped. :-) --Diberri | Talk 00:59, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Cool, give me your email and I shall HOOK you UP! blankfaze | (беседа!) 01:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Did you happen to receive my e-mail? I sent it through the "e-mail this user", which may turn out to be a black hole... (Hope this doesn't sound like I'm trying to rush you -- I just can't wait to get my hands on this new toy :-) Thanks, Diberri | Talk 20:56, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

hey blank! i've always been looking for an account at gmail...i'm just posting here in the mild hope that i could get an account. i know ya dont know me, but thought, why not? Details on me profile. Lockeownzj00 02:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Sure, no problem, just give me your email address and i'll send you an invite. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Hey blankfaze - me too! (I've sent you my e-mail address by the "email this user" link - I've never used that before so I hope it works.) Thanks a bunch. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 04:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • ObMeToo: Can I have one too, please? --Phil | Talk 10:24, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I JUST gave out the last one. I'll drop a note on your talk page if I get any more to give out. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:49, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I was away on holiday and then there was a Bank Holiday ... have I missed out again? --Phil | Talk 09:39, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
        • Not at all, I have 6 now actually... Just give me your email addy here or email me at blankfaze AT gmail DOT com... blankfaze | (беседа!) 21:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • If you still have invites left, I would be interested in one. email: -- Thanks Solipsist 16:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I JUST gave out the last one. I'll drop a note on your talk page if I get any more to give out. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:49, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the second chance, although I got another invite from another Wiki-editor, so I'm all set. -- Solipsist 07:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Hey, my e-mail was on me profile, hope ya didn't miss it...if you already gave em away...damn. Lockeownzj00 15:38, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If anyone wants an account and Blankfaze is out, I have ONE invite remaining. Andre 22:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Your layout is absolutely brilliant, and i love what you've done with it! everything fits and I agree with, too! do ya mind if I use a modified version? :) Lockeownzj00 02:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

admin accountability[edit]

Blankfaze, I like your proposed policy a lot, and I'd be very happy if it was approved. However, I fear that it will be rejected unless you modify it a bit and introduce some safeguards against abuse. - pir 09:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

George W. Bush[edit]

Why is this page still protected? Rex071404 07:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Why are you asking me? How the hell should I know? Just coz I protect a page doesn't mean I follow the ensuing discussion, minute-by-minute, waiting for the right time to unprotect. If you think it's ready to be unprotected, list it on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:03, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


you too?! I love soulseek! you got any favorite chats and such, or where to contact you? I'm parkbench here. Lockeownzj00 15:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • whenever i'm on, i'm usually in the SWEETADDIE room. it's an Elliott Smith chat. but i'm not on all the time (as soulseek can sometimes take up my precious cpu memory!) blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:02, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • P.S. I just checked out your user page, with the new look! Looks good, man! blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • jya, it's a great layout. Don't think I'll ever change this ;) Lockeownzj00 23:28, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Just wanted to point out that, having been here almost three months, Mikkalai is not a "new account" and thus cannot be blocked under the "disruptive users" policy. Snowspinner 00:01, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • Yeah, yeah. Like I said on the talk page, it was meant to be more of a preemptive measure. I was sort of hoping to scare him into stopping his sillyness. But yeah. blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai (orthogonal)[edit]

blankfaze, I'm copying here my response to you re: Mikkalai, from [4]. I do this as a courtesy, so that you're not taken by surprise, and can if you wish, formulate a response to my (quite vehement) critique of you. Of course, also feel free to remove this copy; if you do respond, I'd appreciate you do so on my talk page, so I see it forthwith, as well as on the Administrator Accountability Policy page.

I wish I could have been less vehement, but I can't ignore and I can't countenance the way you used your sysop position to threaten another user.

Copied text:

blankfaze, who is entitled to give "explicit instructions not to edit [a] page", and under what circumstances? As far as I was aware, anyone could edit anything. Thanks. -- orthogonal 04:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well I've taken the time to work up this proposal, and I'd like to manage it myself. So I politely asked that others not edit it. I don't think that's too much to ask, really. blankfaze | (беседа!) 05:29, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
blankfaze, you politely asked, and then you threatened to use your admin powers to block him despite his having done nothing more than edit a page. Yes, you made the proposal, and yes, things are so politicized around here lately that -- despite the wiki spirit of community editing -- I personally wouldn't have edited it.
Your argument that Mikkalai's "edits were disruptive, as they might mislead a reader of the proposal into thinking that for some reason voting would start at any time other than the one specified. I do not believe his edit was necessary or even in good faith, for all he would have to do is raise the issue on the talk page and wait for me to respond" is entirely specious. Not only was no one going to be misled -- as all he was doing was adding a suggestion, but the argument that he should wait for you to respond pre-supposes that you and only you have a right to set the time of the vote. Again, given the politicization, I'd likely have deferred to the author's preferred time, but no one is obligated to do so.
But the page is not your property, and all Mikkalai wanted to do was suggest extending the editing period -- something you yourself later decided to do. Given that you are a sysop, the onus is on you to provide a better, more collegial example -- but instead you decided to take the trust the community reposes in you and use it to be heavy-handed and threatening -- and to a newbie, of all people. Not to put too fine a point on it, you were being a bully while sitting safely behind your computer screen, and expecting to get away with it because you're a sysop.
You claim, above, that "my warning was more of an attempt to curve [sic] an edit war before blocking became necessary, rather than to make a serious threat." That is disingenuous at best: You weren't trying to curb an edit war; as it was your own edit your were trying to maintain, you could have avoid the edit war that simply by compromising.
But on your own talk page, you admit that (emphasis orthogonal's) "I was sort of hoping to scare him into stopping his sillyness [sic]." You expected to be "scary", but you now claim that while you hoped to be scary, what you did wasn't a "serious threat"?
How is threatening to (indefinitely) block a user from editing not a "serious threat"? Not only is it a serious threat, the only WP sanction less severe than banning, it's also a threat that can only be made by a sysop. Rather than avoid being a judge in your own cause by finding another user or sysop to mediate, you threatened to take away a newbie's entire ability to edit over your own edit war.
And you've avoided answering my initial question: who is entitled to give instructions not to edit a page? You state you gave "explicit instructions not to edit", but I don't see where you get the authority to give "explicit instructions" to anyone. Or do you claim that as another perquisite if being a sysop.
You acted precipitously, you in your own words tried to "scare" a fellow user, you were a bully, and you abused your powers as a sysop. And now, rather than admit your mistake like a grown-up, you persist in characterizing Mikkalai's attempt to add a clause -- a clause merely turning a hard time limit into a suggestion -- to your proposal's preamble as "disruptive behavior".
You owe Wikipedia an explanation of just where you think you get the right to "explicitly instruct" the rest of us, and an explanation of how you justify threatening a user who was merely following the wiki spirit of editing boldly. And you owe Mikkalai, and Wikipedia an apology. -- orthogonal 07:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, I think you're taking this entirely too seriously. He was not editing in good faith. He was trying to be an asshole. But, I don't have time to sit here and argue with you. I owe apologies to no one. So, file an RfC on me if you wish - otherwise, drop this, please. blankfaze | (беседа!) 15:13, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hi, Blankfaze. Thank-you very much for your support for me in becoming an adminstrator. Your vote is really appreciated. Unfortunately, I just realized that a mistake was made on that page. I have 1,906 edits. Instead, I have about 1,492. If you want to change your vote, I understand completely, and you have my appreciation either way. Of course, I would never hold it against you. Thanks for your time. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|]] 23:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Nah. My usual threshold for supporting admin candidates is ~ 2000-ish... But I like you, so I'm willing to waive it in this instance. I respect your honesty. blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Anthere vs. Ed[edit]

Hi again. Here is the discussion with Ed I was talking to you about :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 22:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will be frank :-) Tomorrow, as soon as I have time, I will start an edit war on the absolutely disastrous title given to that article. Given that much discussion already took place on the title of the article, the current change of article without previous discussion is extremely inappropriate. I will wait for opinion, but I will probably put the article back to the previous title.

Forgot signing.

fr0069 18:16, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So we'll move it back to where it started the day at French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools? I'm fine with that, I don't really think this title is specific enough to the article content. EdPoor said he wouldn't fight with us if we wanted to move it back (I have been chatting to him about it on his talk page). I'll ask Ed to move it back if we're agreed (it has to be moved back by a sysop and he said he would do it for us). So no edit war needed! :D fabiform | talk 18:19, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Good. So since you mention that Ed would be ok to put it back at the old title, I do it right now :-) fr0069
I didn't realise you were an administrator. How convenient! I think I've annoyed PoorEd for enough in one day. :) fabiform | talk 18:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hmmmm, that is a "power" I use less than once a month :-) Done for february then. The number of titles is quite ridiculous :-) I would be glad that Ed edits my text to make it good english (but this title was just grrrrr). Also, there is some stuff missing. Plus, it probably needs cimenting, and organising. Well, there is still a lot to do anyway. fr0069

Your English is exquisitely precise. I comprehend this title was just grrrrr quite clearly! :-) --Edmond Le Pauvre

do you understand bizzzzz as well ?