Hi there! Saw your userboxes and thought you might be interested in this one (though of course I could be wrong :)): {{user humanist}}. Larix 00:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! E. Sn0 =31337= 00:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- While we're at it, might try this:
 | This user supports the use of personal attacks, because idiots don't need to be coddled. |
ROTFLMMFGDQQAO!!!!111 THAT CRACKS ME UP! (GH3TT0 ED1T: Rogue, you forgot to sign, m8. :)
E. Sn0 =31337= 07:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I did, didn't I? *Chuckle* Sorry about that. Rogue 9 01:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Better one:
|
| This user supports the use of personal attacks when logic fails, because idiots don't need to be coddled. |
Does anyone know why my cannabis userbox says only 'info' instead of the full text? Thanks. E. Sn0 =31337= 07:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks lan13. :) E. Sn0 =31337= 14:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I see you finally decided to show up here. Remember: NPOV 4EVAH! :P Neocapitalist 18:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC) PS- Do you mind if I steal some of your info boxes?
- Hi BBS! Be my guest! Hell, I pinch some of my boxen from other profiles as I see fit. :D E. Sn0 =31337= 18:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have more user boxes than you! Discuss. 8) Neocapitalist 20:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah? Well I have a bigger userbox. :p Rogue 9 07:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
|
 |
| This user unashamedly likes THINGS THAT GO BANG. |
|-
I LOVE IT! E. Sn0 =31337= 07:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Tordek Ar! E. Sn0 =31337= 20:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Kross! E. Sn0 =31337= 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I am highly pissed at the deletions of several of my userboxen and would like the responsible party quickly banned from Wikipedia, no matter whom it is! DELETIONISTS MUST DIE!!
- Then I suggest going to
the appropriate page and saying so.
Rogue 9 15:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Done. E. Sn0 =31337= 19:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 | This user reserves the right to completely screw up their own edits. |
<== sez it all, really. E. Sn0 =31337= 21:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi this image is labled fair use and therefor not allowed in the user namespace. Cold you remove it please? Geni 14:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
C'est la Vie: I have a better gun pic now anyway hee hee hee! E. Sn0 =31337= 20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to let you know — there are some guidelines at the top of WP:AIV for listing users there. They need to be warned a certain number of times and be continuing to vandalize despite the warnings. Thanks for helping out! — Cleared as filed. 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I take it one warning level per vandalism past the previous one is appropriate? E. Sn0 =31337= 00:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- If it's blatant vandalism, as the ones you were tagging were, use {{subst:bv}} for "blatant vandal." That puts the user on notice that he/she will be banned if they vandalize again. If they do vandalize again after you've put that template on their talk page, then it's time to list them on
WP:AIV. Thanks! —
Cleared as filed. 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip and the good faith. :) E. Sn0 =31337= 00:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi there! If you're ever short of a few subjects to do, we'd be more than happy to see you at Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board. There's not that many of us, and we need all the help and opinions we can get. Cheers! Fergananim 21:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The Gastrich RfC is a bit out of date, it was superceded by an Arb Com ruling that banned him for a year. JoshuaZ 04:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Oops, my apologies. Pwned, I guess. :D E. Sn0 =31337= 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the response to my comment to your vote. I should have disclosed that my own vote (just up the page a bit from yours) was a keep vote also. (I only disagreed with anti-censorship being the basis for a keep vote.) So we share the majority view that Wikitruth is notable and let's hope things proceed in our favour... Cheers! -- Ds13 23:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- No problem at all. This is more about keeping Wikipedia from abandoning its own principles in the face of criticism anyway. E. Sn0 =31337= 03:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Reverted your comments. I'm not condoning the troll's comments in any way; I just don't like feeding them. Cheers,
Samir
(the scope)
धर्म 17:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I understand you're not condoning it. Two wrongs don't make right. I apologize for the abuse. Check your talk page, k? E. Sn0 =31337= 17:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply from your response on my talk page
I regret that we disagree on how to deal with vandals. I in no way condone the actions of said vandal, but I do not condone incivility of any Wikipedian. Rather than "arm for war," I'd rather be nice. However, this is only my opinion. You do what you will in your responses to vandals, but please try to stay civil. Good luck with future dealings with vandals. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently you've never had personal dealings with bigots. These subhuman wastes of space understand precisely three things: Hate, violence, and money. These are :::NOT::: nice people. 'Happyface'ing them to death is just a hippie myth. You'll only get laughed at as their baseball bat finds the back of your skull. You deal with them by enforcing the peace through superior firepower.
- Yes, it's all well and good to be nice to people by default, but only until the point they say, advocate, or do something hateful and violent. Then you tear them a new one with whatever force is necessary until they leave or stop moving if the situation demands it.
E. Sn0 =31337= 03:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Okay then, her deletions were cowardly. There, it's both consistent with NPA and the truth in one. I will not be forced to tell a lie just to be WP:CIVIL. Good day sir. E. Sn0 =31337= 02:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I very much appreciate the fact that you feel that SlimVirgin's actions are as unpleasant as I did. However, I urge you to take a deep breath. The actions you're doing will end up getting you blocked for WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL. People's opinions carry the most credibility when they present them calmly and with assurance. Thank you for what you're doing, but if you'd like to assist, please don't take this particular pathway. — WCityMike ( talk • contribs • where to reply) 02:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Roger that. One more revert and I would be eligible for 3RR, so I've quit with that. She protected her talk page anyway. As for Civility, I will not sacrifice the truth for civility. E. Sn0 =31337= 02:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Truth and civility need not always be exclusive, my friend, and often opinion can't be classified as truth. There is, for example, no quantifiable and entirely objective test by which one can measure cowardice; thus, you calling SlimVirgin a coward is your opinion, and that's where the issue of civility and incivility falls. In this environment, calling her a coward does her no harm, but does you harm. In this environment, civility only improves your reputation, and incivility only harms it. Don't misunderstand me: I do appreciate someone sharing my opinion on this matter. I just suggest that you're doing yourself harm conducting yourself in that particular fashion. — WCityMike ( talk • contribs • where to reply) 02:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- You have a good point. I'll rephrase my assertion then: SlimVirgin's actions are consistent with a deliberate attempt to quash debate about the material deleted-by-fiat from Talk:Wikitruth, and her deletions of material from users' talk page is a clear and naked attempt at censorship. That is civil and truthful at the same time. There's no namecalling and no baseless accusations whatsoever; they can be verified. E. Sn0 =31337= 02:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Again, although I appreciate your support — and I do really mean that, I'm not just saying it for the heck of it, as my attempt to be civil is getting quashed elsewhere — you're still using very emotionally charged words and accusations — "deliberate attempt to quash", "deleted-by-fiat", "clear and naked" — that's going to hurt you almost as much as "coward" would. — WCityMike ( talk • contribs • where to reply) 02:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Those terms are clear, concise, verifiable, and very accurate descriptors of what has been observed. We must learn not to shoot the messenger, as truth can be uncivil and ugly but far more important than civility. I for one would rather accept a rudely-worded foul-tasting truth about myself than a sugar-coated lie with a cherry on top. It helps me correct the problem better. E. Sn0 =31337= 02:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, sometimes minor explosions do help. And I agree that sugar-coating something too much can be a form of lie in and of itself. But our dialogue here is a great example. Suppose I had come in here and said, "Listen, ya mouthy bastard, do you think calling an ADMIN a COWARD is gonna be of any help to me? The last thing I need to do is have someone coming into my corner who can't control his temper!" And so on. Now, I do not think that you are a mouthy bastard, and I don't believe in that last sentence, either. But that could very easily be considered "rudely-worded" and "foul-tasting" -- and it would have done nothing but turned a well-meaning individual into an enemy who thought me a real prick. Instead, I came in here, and I approached the situation with genuine appreciation and civility — and you met me halfway. That wasn't a coincidence, my friend! — WCityMike ( talk • contribs • where to reply) 03:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure whether to have done that as an example or not, and I didn't mean to offend you by it. I never actually felt as I wrote above there. I'm just saying that approaching conflicts from a diplomatic perspective does have significant value. It gets people into a mood where they're willing to meet you halfway. (Some of the time.) Coming at people full-strength with exclamation points can give you a heady rush that sends adrenaline and triumph coarsing through your veins, but it doesn't help with resolving the conflict itself. I used our own very mild conflict (we conflicted over approach) as an example of same. —
WCityMike (
talk •
contribs •
where to reply) 03:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Naw, that was perfect! :)
E. Sn0 =31337= 03:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, then you get my point. :) Of course, I'm learning that in this environment, civility doesn't seem to help, either. Read this. — WCityMike ( talk • contribs • where to reply) 03:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Naw, that was perfect! :)
E. Sn0 =31337= 03:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure whether to have done that as an example or not, and I didn't mean to offend you by it. I never actually felt as I wrote above there. I'm just saying that approaching conflicts from a diplomatic perspective does have significant value. It gets people into a mood where they're willing to meet you halfway. (Some of the time.) Coming at people full-strength with exclamation points can give you a heady rush that sends adrenaline and triumph coarsing through your veins, but it doesn't help with resolving the conflict itself. I used our own very mild conflict (we conflicted over approach) as an example of same. —
WCityMike (
talk •
contribs •
where to reply) 03:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Category:Aspergian Wikipedians which you have included on your user page has been proposed for deletion you can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. The is also a proposal to create an association to meet the needs of users with mental health conditions. -- Salix alba ( talk) 18:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Vote and strong comment posted. E. Sn0 =31337= 19:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey stop calling me names. I can edit whatever I want on gays. (note: this was posted by 67.175.171.102 on my user page; moving to talk page.
- I am calling a spade a spade, you caveman troll. See your talk page for my full answer. You cannot advocate hate as you were doing; you have no right to it. E. Sn0 =31337= 01:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
WEEEEEEE I'm DRUNK LMAO ROFLOLOLOLOLOLOOLL!!!11~~`~` 70.117.7.111 04:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- YAAAAAYYY!!!1 E. Sn0 =31337= 04:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Please try to remain civil, even (or perhaps especially) in the face of trolls. If the IP continues editing problematically, s/he will be blocked soon enough. Thanks for helping to revert vandalism and warn users. ( ESkog)( Talk) 05:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
May I remind you to please remain civil at all times. While I agree that the editor's addition was unwelcome, this [1] response was a bit over the top. Being firm is one thing, being overly aggressive is another. -- AbsolutDan (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tweak m8 :D
You're welcome! Dreadlocke 03:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
He's been behaving badly, to be sure, but not quite enough to merit a permanent ban in my opinion. Plus, in my experience users who are permabanned for vandalism are extremely likely to return as sockpuppets, and this guy already has a history of editing from multiple accounts. I think that for now it's better to keep his edits under this account, where we can easily identify and revert them. If he continues or his behavior worsens, a longer block will be warranted, possibly ending in an indefinite one, but for now let's give him enough rope to hang himself, shall we? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Good tactic once you think of it. Agreed. E. Sn0 =31337= 02:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gwernol 02:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, so the content of his edit implies he's a cave troll from the left side of the Bell Curve. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia really does not need people with these byzantine and antiquated kinds of views editing it. Would you allow racists to be coddled? I wouldn't. I'd take the fight to them with prejudice, and that's a fact.
E. Sn0 =31337= 02:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- You'll notice the edit was reverted within seconds of appearing, the user was appropriately warned and has now stopped making these offensive edits. If this IP makes any more edits of this kind I will block it. However none of that excuses personal attacks. Personal attacks provoke situations rather than helping to stop them. We have a strict
policy against personal attacks, please abide by it. Please do not fall to the level of the vandals. Thanks,
Gwernol 02:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I will abide. :) E. Sn0 =31337= 03:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- You'll notice the edit was reverted within seconds of appearing, the user was appropriately warned and has now stopped making these offensive edits. If this IP makes any more edits of this kind I will block it. However none of that excuses personal attacks. Personal attacks provoke situations rather than helping to stop them. We have a strict
policy against personal attacks, please abide by it. Please do not fall to the level of the vandals. Thanks,
Gwernol 02:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but as an Inclusionist wikipedia things are getting desperate and I need to appeal to your for help. We are facing a situation where a deletionist admin is free to declare inclusionist arguments "absurd" and ignore them at will. If you don't agree with this situation, please share your opinion here. Kappa 02:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done E. Sn0 =31337= 02:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So what's up, Mr. Kross? As you've noticed I haven't your page that hard since last year. I realized something pretty quickly. Every time I either A)Make an LCV name or B) admit to being myself, I get banned so quickly. So consider yourself lucky for this year. I do have some plans for you though. And to think. All you had to do was just be civil. LCVMAN 18:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- You know, you made your point. Hell, I don't even remember *why* this all started. Anyways, my page is protected and any vandalism done to this page ends up being reverted quickly. Its pretty futile and a waste of everyone's time.-- Kross Talk 19:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- LCV, YOU are precisely why civility fails. None is given where it isn't earned. You have earned none whatsoever. Get over yourself, find a girl, and forget about Wikipedia. Or better yet concentrate on your college studies instead of your vendetta with Kross. Maybe you'll succeed in your major and, in the process, gain a little something called 'maturity'. Good day sir. E. Sn0 =31337= 20:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- You need to learn to keep your mouth shut. Aren't you an admin? You should not try to instigate me asshole. You know what? I'm still gonna vandalize, but I'm not going to do it as LCV or any other gimmick name. YOu can personally thank yourself for continuing this. The odd part though is that I'm pissed off at you more so thank Kross. Amazingly, he decided not to curse.
- Oh good, I'm glad you're angry. Maybe you'll A> realize how counterproductive and immature your vendettas are or B> drop dead of a coronary; either way Problem Solved. No, I'm not an Admin and I honestly don't care either way whether I get to be one or not. I also don't care whether you CHOOSE to be instigated by me or not either; it's completely your choice. Notice I don't curse either to appease your Emily Post style-over-substance sensibilities? Please grow up. Good day sir. E. Sn0 =31337= 00:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- You need to learn to keep your mouth shut. Aren't you an admin? You should not try to instigate me asshole. You know what? I'm still gonna vandalize, but I'm not going to do it as LCV or any other gimmick name. YOu can personally thank yourself for continuing this. The odd part though is that I'm pissed off at you more so thank Kross. Amazingly, he decided not to curse.
I'd rather you didn't continue the discussion anywhere. -- Steel 01:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, no problem. I think we need to rez the 'Long Term Abuse/The Loyola Vandal' page... E. Sn0 =31337= 01:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi there! Saw your userboxes and thought you might be interested in this one (though of course I could be wrong :)): {{user humanist}}. Larix 00:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! E. Sn0 =31337= 00:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- While we're at it, might try this:
|
| This user supports the use of personal attacks, because idiots don't need to be coddled. |
ROTFLMMFGDQQAO!!!!111 THAT CRACKS ME UP! (GH3TT0 ED1T: Rogue, you forgot to sign, m8. :)
E. Sn0 =31337= 07:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I did, didn't I? *Chuckle* Sorry about that. Rogue 9 01:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Better one:
|
| This user supports the use of personal attacks when logic fails, because idiots don't need to be coddled. |
Does anyone know why my cannabis userbox says only 'info' instead of the full text? Thanks. E. Sn0 =31337= 07:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks lan13. :) E. Sn0 =31337= 14:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I see you finally decided to show up here. Remember: NPOV 4EVAH! :P Neocapitalist 18:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC) PS- Do you mind if I steal some of your info boxes?
- Hi BBS! Be my guest! Hell, I pinch some of my boxen from other profiles as I see fit. :D E. Sn0 =31337= 18:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have more user boxes than you! Discuss. 8) Neocapitalist 20:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah? Well I have a bigger userbox. :p Rogue 9 07:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
|
|
| This user unashamedly likes THINGS THAT GO BANG. |
|-
I LOVE IT! E. Sn0 =31337= 07:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Tordek Ar! E. Sn0 =31337= 20:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Kross! E. Sn0 =31337= 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I am highly pissed at the deletions of several of my userboxen and would like the responsible party quickly banned from Wikipedia, no matter whom it is! DELETIONISTS MUST DIE!!
- Then I suggest going to
the appropriate page and saying so.
Rogue 9 15:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Done. E. Sn0 =31337= 19:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
|
| This user reserves the right to completely screw up their own edits. |
<== sez it all, really. E. Sn0 =31337= 21:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi this image is labled fair use and therefor not allowed in the user namespace. Cold you remove it please? Geni 14:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
C'est la Vie: I have a better gun pic now anyway hee hee hee! E. Sn0 =31337= 20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to let you know — there are some guidelines at the top of WP:AIV for listing users there. They need to be warned a certain number of times and be continuing to vandalize despite the warnings. Thanks for helping out! — Cleared as filed. 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I take it one warning level per vandalism past the previous one is appropriate? E. Sn0 =31337= 00:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- If it's blatant vandalism, as the ones you were tagging were, use {{subst:bv}} for "blatant vandal." That puts the user on notice that he/she will be banned if they vandalize again. If they do vandalize again after you've put that template on their talk page, then it's time to list them on
WP:AIV. Thanks! —
Cleared as filed. 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip and the good faith. :) E. Sn0 =31337= 00:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi there! If you're ever short of a few subjects to do, we'd be more than happy to see you at Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board. There's not that many of us, and we need all the help and opinions we can get. Cheers! Fergananim 21:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The Gastrich RfC is a bit out of date, it was superceded by an Arb Com ruling that banned him for a year. JoshuaZ 04:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Oops, my apologies. Pwned, I guess. :D E. Sn0 =31337= 05:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the response to my comment to your vote. I should have disclosed that my own vote (just up the page a bit from yours) was a keep vote also. (I only disagreed with anti-censorship being the basis for a keep vote.) So we share the majority view that Wikitruth is notable and let's hope things proceed in our favour... Cheers! -- Ds13 23:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- No problem at all. This is more about keeping Wikipedia from abandoning its own principles in the face of criticism anyway. E. Sn0 =31337= 03:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Reverted your comments. I'm not condoning the troll's comments in any way; I just don't like feeding them. Cheers,
Samir
(the scope)
धर्म 17:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I understand you're not condoning it. Two wrongs don't make right. I apologize for the abuse. Check your talk page, k? E. Sn0 =31337= 17:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply from your response on my talk page
I regret that we disagree on how to deal with vandals. I in no way condone the actions of said vandal, but I do not condone incivility of any Wikipedian. Rather than "arm for war," I'd rather be nice. However, this is only my opinion. You do what you will in your responses to vandals, but please try to stay civil. Good luck with future dealings with vandals. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently you've never had personal dealings with bigots. These subhuman wastes of space understand precisely three things: Hate, violence, and money. These are :::NOT::: nice people. 'Happyface'ing them to death is just a hippie myth. You'll only get laughed at as their baseball bat finds the back of your skull. You deal with them by enforcing the peace through superior firepower.
- Yes, it's all well and good to be nice to people by default, but only until the point they say, advocate, or do something hateful and violent. Then you tear them a new one with whatever force is necessary until they leave or stop moving if the situation demands it.
E. Sn0 =31337= 03:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Okay then, her deletions were cowardly. There, it's both consistent with NPA and the truth in one. I will not be forced to tell a lie just to be WP:CIVIL. Good day sir. E. Sn0 =31337= 02:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I very much appreciate the fact that you feel that SlimVirgin's actions are as unpleasant as I did. However, I urge you to take a deep breath. The actions you're doing will end up getting you blocked for WP:3RR and WP:CIVIL. People's opinions carry the most credibility when they present them calmly and with assurance. Thank you for what you're doing, but if you'd like to assist, please don't take this particular pathway. — WCityMike ( talk • contribs • where to reply) 02:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Roger that. One more revert and I would be eligible for 3RR, so I've quit with that. She protected her talk page anyway. As for Civility, I will not sacrifice the truth for civility. E. Sn0 =31337= 02:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Truth and civility need not always be exclusive, my friend, and often opinion can't be classified as truth. There is, for example, no quantifiable and entirely objective test by which one can measure cowardice; thus, you calling SlimVirgin a coward is your opinion, and that's where the issue of civility and incivility falls. In this environment, calling her a coward does her no harm, but does you harm. In this environment, civility only improves your reputation, and incivility only harms it. Don't misunderstand me: I do appreciate someone sharing my opinion on this matter. I just suggest that you're doing yourself harm conducting yourself in that particular fashion. — WCityMike ( talk • contribs • where to reply) 02:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- You have a good point. I'll rephrase my assertion then: SlimVirgin's actions are consistent with a deliberate attempt to quash debate about the material deleted-by-fiat from Talk:Wikitruth, and her deletions of material from users' talk page is a clear and naked attempt at censorship. That is civil and truthful at the same time. There's no namecalling and no baseless accusations whatsoever; they can be verified. E. Sn0 =31337= 02:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Again, although I appreciate your support — and I do really mean that, I'm not just saying it for the heck of it, as my attempt to be civil is getting quashed elsewhere — you're still using very emotionally charged words and accusations — "deliberate attempt to quash", "deleted-by-fiat", "clear and naked" — that's going to hurt you almost as much as "coward" would. — WCityMike ( talk • contribs • where to reply) 02:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Those terms are clear, concise, verifiable, and very accurate descriptors of what has been observed. We must learn not to shoot the messenger, as truth can be uncivil and ugly but far more important than civility. I for one would rather accept a rudely-worded foul-tasting truth about myself than a sugar-coated lie with a cherry on top. It helps me correct the problem better. E. Sn0 =31337= 02:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, sometimes minor explosions do help. And I agree that sugar-coating something too much can be a form of lie in and of itself. But our dialogue here is a great example. Suppose I had come in here and said, "Listen, ya mouthy bastard, do you think calling an ADMIN a COWARD is gonna be of any help to me? The last thing I need to do is have someone coming into my corner who can't control his temper!" And so on. Now, I do not think that you are a mouthy bastard, and I don't believe in that last sentence, either. But that could very easily be considered "rudely-worded" and "foul-tasting" -- and it would have done nothing but turned a well-meaning individual into an enemy who thought me a real prick. Instead, I came in here, and I approached the situation with genuine appreciation and civility — and you met me halfway. That wasn't a coincidence, my friend! — WCityMike ( talk • contribs • where to reply) 03:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure whether to have done that as an example or not, and I didn't mean to offend you by it. I never actually felt as I wrote above there. I'm just saying that approaching conflicts from a diplomatic perspective does have significant value. It gets people into a mood where they're willing to meet you halfway. (Some of the time.) Coming at people full-strength with exclamation points can give you a heady rush that sends adrenaline and triumph coarsing through your veins, but it doesn't help with resolving the conflict itself. I used our own very mild conflict (we conflicted over approach) as an example of same. —
WCityMike (
talk •
contribs •
where to reply) 03:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Naw, that was perfect! :)
E. Sn0 =31337= 03:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, then you get my point. :) Of course, I'm learning that in this environment, civility doesn't seem to help, either. Read this. — WCityMike ( talk • contribs • where to reply) 03:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Naw, that was perfect! :)
E. Sn0 =31337= 03:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure whether to have done that as an example or not, and I didn't mean to offend you by it. I never actually felt as I wrote above there. I'm just saying that approaching conflicts from a diplomatic perspective does have significant value. It gets people into a mood where they're willing to meet you halfway. (Some of the time.) Coming at people full-strength with exclamation points can give you a heady rush that sends adrenaline and triumph coarsing through your veins, but it doesn't help with resolving the conflict itself. I used our own very mild conflict (we conflicted over approach) as an example of same. —
WCityMike (
talk •
contribs •
where to reply) 03:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Category:Aspergian Wikipedians which you have included on your user page has been proposed for deletion you can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. The is also a proposal to create an association to meet the needs of users with mental health conditions. -- Salix alba ( talk) 18:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Vote and strong comment posted. E. Sn0 =31337= 19:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey stop calling me names. I can edit whatever I want on gays. (note: this was posted by 67.175.171.102 on my user page; moving to talk page.
- I am calling a spade a spade, you caveman troll. See your talk page for my full answer. You cannot advocate hate as you were doing; you have no right to it. E. Sn0 =31337= 01:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
WEEEEEEE I'm DRUNK LMAO ROFLOLOLOLOLOLOOLL!!!11~~`~` 70.117.7.111 04:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- YAAAAAYYY!!!1 E. Sn0 =31337= 04:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Please try to remain civil, even (or perhaps especially) in the face of trolls. If the IP continues editing problematically, s/he will be blocked soon enough. Thanks for helping to revert vandalism and warn users. ( ESkog)( Talk) 05:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
May I remind you to please remain civil at all times. While I agree that the editor's addition was unwelcome, this [1] response was a bit over the top. Being firm is one thing, being overly aggressive is another. -- AbsolutDan (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tweak m8 :D
You're welcome! Dreadlocke 03:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
He's been behaving badly, to be sure, but not quite enough to merit a permanent ban in my opinion. Plus, in my experience users who are permabanned for vandalism are extremely likely to return as sockpuppets, and this guy already has a history of editing from multiple accounts. I think that for now it's better to keep his edits under this account, where we can easily identify and revert them. If he continues or his behavior worsens, a longer block will be warranted, possibly ending in an indefinite one, but for now let's give him enough rope to hang himself, shall we? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Good tactic once you think of it. Agreed. E. Sn0 =31337= 02:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gwernol 02:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, so the content of his edit implies he's a cave troll from the left side of the Bell Curve. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia really does not need people with these byzantine and antiquated kinds of views editing it. Would you allow racists to be coddled? I wouldn't. I'd take the fight to them with prejudice, and that's a fact.
E. Sn0 =31337= 02:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- You'll notice the edit was reverted within seconds of appearing, the user was appropriately warned and has now stopped making these offensive edits. If this IP makes any more edits of this kind I will block it. However none of that excuses personal attacks. Personal attacks provoke situations rather than helping to stop them. We have a strict
policy against personal attacks, please abide by it. Please do not fall to the level of the vandals. Thanks,
Gwernol 02:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I will abide. :) E. Sn0 =31337= 03:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- You'll notice the edit was reverted within seconds of appearing, the user was appropriately warned and has now stopped making these offensive edits. If this IP makes any more edits of this kind I will block it. However none of that excuses personal attacks. Personal attacks provoke situations rather than helping to stop them. We have a strict
policy against personal attacks, please abide by it. Please do not fall to the level of the vandals. Thanks,
Gwernol 02:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but as an Inclusionist wikipedia things are getting desperate and I need to appeal to your for help. We are facing a situation where a deletionist admin is free to declare inclusionist arguments "absurd" and ignore them at will. If you don't agree with this situation, please share your opinion here. Kappa 02:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done E. Sn0 =31337= 02:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So what's up, Mr. Kross? As you've noticed I haven't your page that hard since last year. I realized something pretty quickly. Every time I either A)Make an LCV name or B) admit to being myself, I get banned so quickly. So consider yourself lucky for this year. I do have some plans for you though. And to think. All you had to do was just be civil. LCVMAN 18:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- You know, you made your point. Hell, I don't even remember *why* this all started. Anyways, my page is protected and any vandalism done to this page ends up being reverted quickly. Its pretty futile and a waste of everyone's time.-- Kross Talk 19:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- LCV, YOU are precisely why civility fails. None is given where it isn't earned. You have earned none whatsoever. Get over yourself, find a girl, and forget about Wikipedia. Or better yet concentrate on your college studies instead of your vendetta with Kross. Maybe you'll succeed in your major and, in the process, gain a little something called 'maturity'. Good day sir. E. Sn0 =31337= 20:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- You need to learn to keep your mouth shut. Aren't you an admin? You should not try to instigate me asshole. You know what? I'm still gonna vandalize, but I'm not going to do it as LCV or any other gimmick name. YOu can personally thank yourself for continuing this. The odd part though is that I'm pissed off at you more so thank Kross. Amazingly, he decided not to curse.
- Oh good, I'm glad you're angry. Maybe you'll A> realize how counterproductive and immature your vendettas are or B> drop dead of a coronary; either way Problem Solved. No, I'm not an Admin and I honestly don't care either way whether I get to be one or not. I also don't care whether you CHOOSE to be instigated by me or not either; it's completely your choice. Notice I don't curse either to appease your Emily Post style-over-substance sensibilities? Please grow up. Good day sir. E. Sn0 =31337= 00:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- You need to learn to keep your mouth shut. Aren't you an admin? You should not try to instigate me asshole. You know what? I'm still gonna vandalize, but I'm not going to do it as LCV or any other gimmick name. YOu can personally thank yourself for continuing this. The odd part though is that I'm pissed off at you more so thank Kross. Amazingly, he decided not to curse.
I'd rather you didn't continue the discussion anywhere. -- Steel 01:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, no problem. I think we need to rez the 'Long Term Abuse/The Loyola Vandal' page... E. Sn0 =31337= 01:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)