User:Avriette/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Image tags 2 San Dieguito County Park 3 talk pages 4 Hawaiian royalty naming conventions 5 Hi 6 re: vandalism 7 mons pubis 8 re: admin nomination 9 Pistol article 10 Naming Conventions for Hawaiian Monarchs 11 Ummon 12 User Categorization 13 Raging Bull 14 Wars of Scottish Independence/to do 15 Peer review 16 curious about your comment 17 My application to the Arbitration Committee 18 Tina Fey as a feminist 19 Image:Christopher Golden.jpg 20 Personal attacks 21 Cabal ub

[edit] Image tags

Just to let you know the correct tag is {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. When you are adding it, you are missing the -military- part. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:50, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I'll fix those. Avriette 07:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Or maybe you'll fix those on your own! How helpful! Thank you! Avriette 07:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] San Dieguito County Park

I left a reply to your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California. BlankVerse ∅ 9 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)

Thanks. I had seen that (I watch everything I edit), but I haven't gotten around to doing it. I may do that today if my wife lets me spend the time on the tablet. Avriette 21:04, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] talk pages

Talk pages are for discussion. It is considered bad taste to revert and delete comments left on the Talk pages. Thank you for using Wikipedia.

• Avriette, why don't you take a step back and look at what happened before calling me a nubcake (for someone who works at Microsoft, this may take WAY too much intelligence for you).

I added a comment to the talk section regarding 111!!!11one. My comment says "Gonif is still around. He plays DR". You reverted back and deleted that, on a talk page no less. That is bad form for 2 reasons: reason 1, you don't delete other people's talk comments. reason 2, you don't revert talk pages except for blatant vandalism. Furthermore, now you come onto my talk page and insult me (personal attacks are against wikipedia policy) and then start blabbering about some random edits that have nothing to do with my one small little section.

Looks like YOU messed up. I'll accept your apology. Swatjester 00:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

followup here Avriette 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaiian royalty naming conventions

Hello, I'd like to solicit your input. I'm trying to initiative a conversation on developing naming conventions for Hawaiian royals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style and would appreciate your views on the subject. Mahalo nui loa, 青い(Aoi) 04:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Where is cannabis cultivation legal. Place names and sources please, SqueakBox 00:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

don't be a twit. you can find this information on your own. sources aren't really required to name where cannabis is legal to cultivate, it's common knowledge among anyone who has actually looked into the matter, or grown it themselves. It is perfectly legal to cultivate and possess cannabis in the netherlands, as well as in the state of california. nevada and arizona also have decriminalized cannabis cultivation. british columbia, as i recall has also decriminalized, although i don't know the specific law off the top of my head. many smaller countries simply do not have laws on the books on the subject. furthermore, many groups (such as indigenous tribes) do not recognize the law of the municipalities they reside in. would you tell an aborigine it was against the law to cultivate ibogaine? what about marijuana? get a grip. Avriette 15:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

You need to stop slagging people off. You are rude. I suggest you reassess your attitude if you wish to keep editing here as personal attacks are barely tolerated and you seem to be a master. Marijuana is not legal to cultivate in Holland leading me to doubt your assertion that it is legal in some parts of the US. Indigenous people are not exempt from the laws against cannabis cultivation. That would be rascism, SqueakBox 16:10, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the line breaks which are not standard to wikipedia and make the article a nightmare to edit. Removed some POV (esp that strong cannabis is produced because of the illegality), some irrelevances such as kif and 2 suspect pics that I have put up for speedy deletion (and have now been speedily deleted, redownload them after you get permission and not before). They were embedded in the text but they should never have been downloaded to wikipedia until permission had been actually granted, SqueakBox 16:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Finally I would point out that it is not my responsibility to source your (Avriette's) dubious claims. It is for you to source them, and without engaging in personal attacks, claiming I am a twit and an effing numbskull for questioning your dubious claims and not rushing out to try and source them for you. Your sources don't give any obvious info proving your point, while the Iraq war article and the vague wikipedia articles not connected to the issue make me strongly question your good faith as an editor here and make me think you are POV pushing and leting off steam. Please control yourself. What exactly am I supposed to be getting a grip of? The dubious claims have now been removed, SqueakBox 16:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I am genuinely confused as to why people who have cultivated cannabis somehow know that it is legal to cultivate in some places? I can't see how one logically leads to the other, so perhaps you can enlighten me. Do cannabis cultivators where it is illegal research the places where you allege it is legal to cultivate it? Or what exactly? I have looked through your 7 links and none of them mention legalised cannabis cultivation; indeed some of them don't mention cannabis at all. Are you just trolling? If so, please can you go and do it somewhere else, SqueakBox 19:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I would argue about the finer points of this with you, but I have no interest in a dick swinging contest. Nothing I say here will convince you one way or the other, and you haven't shown any interest in research at all; simply a furtherance of your beliefs. Let me remind you that the style guide to wikipedia is a guide, not policy. In fact, this has been discussed before. I change my stance on the Netherlands drug policy. It is technically illegal, but said law is not enforced. Arizona, California, Nevada and other states are on the record (so they're not links to the actual legislation, you can find that your self) as having decriminalized cannabis cultivation. British Columbia is close to similar reactions (or may have, I didn't look far enough). I find this base arguing over character to be characteristic of the worst kind of user of the wikipedia -- somebody who requests adminship and views it as a badge to harass users, make threats, delete comments, revert changes, and so on. To quote Jimbo, "it should be no big deal." So why do I find myself defending myself against threats from somebody who is copping a permissions escalation threat? I never claimed to be superior, I claimed to be right. In fact, I am. If you wish to further debate the veracity of this article, you may recuse yourself from consideration in a peer review process, which is available to all articles. Consider also, that this article and other cannabis related articles are highly polarizing in nature. It will be difficult to attain any consensus whatsoever. When I arrive home, I will remove any damage you have perpetrated on this article, and perhaps loosen up some of the text. Please also note that the preceding article was near worthless. Lastly, not all people who consume marijuana are shiftless idiots. I would say that, yes, a majority of people who cultivate cannabis do research the legality of it (much in the way concealed weapons permit holders do), as it is imperative that they understand the law. I myself will not comment on my own participation, except to say that I have never illegally cultivated cannabis. Do not revert style in articles unless you are prepared to cite policy which states articles MUST BE WRITTEN A CERTAIN WAY. Do not threaten me further. Keep your opinions off your sleeve and out of articles. Keep personal attacks on personal pages, not on article pages. And maybe, next time, do your own damn research for yourself, if you disagree with an article. I'd like to state that last night in fact, I cleaned up and helped georeactor escape a probable vfd, noting that the article was garbage and required peer review. I'm hardly what you could call a crusading idealogue. Please direct any further spite or vitriole to either my personal email address (which you are smart enough to find), or to my user page. xoxo, Avriette 21:10, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

IMO the worst kind of user is one who calls others effing numbskulls and twits etc. You are the one who are attacking me, not the other way around, SqueakBox 21:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I see we agree on the other points then. Thank you for keeping the wikipedia free of people you don't like here. Avriette 21:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have received permission from the DNR to use the aforementioned images. Thanks for deleting them. Avriette 21:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well now you have permission those pics will be a useful addition to the article. Deleting non copyright free material is for the sake of wikipedia, and I can assure you it had nothing to do with you. I certainly don't think marijuana growers are shiftless idiots. In the UK one would know that cultivation is an imprisonable offence and have no need to investigate further. Same in Honduras and most of the rest of the world. I don't agree at all that you are right about Holland. The supply side has not been legalised. But, I repeat, it is for you to research to source any claims you make in articles at wikipedia, it is not up to me to do that research because I dispute your claim and am asking you to source it. I only need to research my own claims in articles, eg if I were stating in the article that cannabis is illegal everywhere then you might ask me to source that claim and I would have to do so or see said claim removed. That is the way it works on all tricky POV articles (as you rightly comment cannabis is inevitably a tricky POV type subject). BTW who is the administrator you were talking about? SqueakBox 21:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to in the last line of your comment. I think there may be a misunderstanding as to the state of the text in the article. I find that very large editing tasks such as the original edit are near impossible to complete in the browser. Thus, I took the text, pumped it into vim, and edited it there. This was a process that took, even in vim, several hours. Upon completion, I copied it from an apache share into my text editor again, and subsequently reinserted it into the page. You don't seem to be a unix user, so I'll explain that this involved my own personal editor settings turning on text wrap and a column width of 78 characters when I edit a file ending in .txt, such as "ccult.txt", in this case. With all due respect (and I do not mean that facetiously), I think this is a little egocentric on your end. Your assumption that I was using a "nightmare" of formatting takes into account no other possible editing format but your own.

As to sources, I will list a few. Everything I put in the article was from memory, and only occasionally checked against other articles on the wikipedia (such as linked). I have a lot of experience in the subject, and was taught by others with much experience in the subject. Additionally, you may have gathered from the (if I do say so myself) vast spectrum of subjects I enthusiastically edit, that I read a great deal, with a high degree of retention. Nevertheless, said books are still on my shelves, and I can go dig them up for ISBN's, or hit amazon. As to the legality, I got out of the operation back in the mid 1990's, when I left California. Since then, the legal situation has changed somewhat, with a particularly dubious states-rights vs federal law problem coming up, especially in California. We've even had (at last count) two supreme court cases on the subject.

I am of a mind to break out the legality of it entirely into its own article. Ordinarily, I would have a brief summary and use the {{seemain}} template, but even that's been cocked up. I think that, while legality is an important part of the discussion (and has only been granted a cursory (and inconsistent) treatment in the present state of the article, it also detracts from what I view to be a primarily botany-related article, not a socially-related article. I would also like to note that my inferrence was misunderstood when you believed I had meant that illegality has resulted in stronger potency marijuana products. In fact, what I had meant was illegality had resulted in indoor growing, increased light (due to production needs), co2 enrichment, and the like -- which in turn resulted in higher quality plants.

At any rate, I will rework the article some, and attempt to leave the linebreaks out. I will during that process move the legal issues around, add the previously removed images, and clean up the wording. I'm sure you'll let me know what you think.

I would also like to state that I find it incredibly disappointing that you have reacted so violently to this article. It is my belief, based upon seeing your edit history, and your participation in things such as a group of "drug free" wikipedians, that you see yourself as both a police agent of some administrative wikipedia cabal, and somebody who must "save" drug users. It is important for you to understand that, whether this is true or not, it is the way your actions were perceived by me. While my reaction was (in my opinion, understandably) quite bristly, your initial comment seems to be quite demanding, without extending an olive branch of research. I, myself, would have said something akin to "ahem, I found sources x y and z, which seem to contradict the article. could you please elaborate on this?" Additionally, I would have put it on the user's page directly, rather than having this here. In fact, I would appreciate it if you would either move this to my talk page, or to your talk page, as I think it has little substantive relation to the material in the article. This has largely been an argumentative exchange over character and politics, and we are only now (seemingly) reaching some sort of tentative agreement or cease fire. Let me also say that I would not have reverted the article (as you did) without first attempting to come to some agreement.

I would encourage you to participate in some of the more mundane tasks of wikipedia usership. You seem to have occupied a lot of your recent time here with things like vfd/tfd, talking to users about things they shouldn't be doing, and updating your user page. It seems to me that what should keep users coming back here is not that they are in a position of power. In fact, I don't think administrators really are in a position of power. When such a position is perceived by an administrator, I think they should quickly be convinced otherwise. This is, incidentally, why I stated at least a couple times that threats have no place in the wikipedia.

To summarize, I don't have any particular beef with you, except as mentioned above, my feeling that you are abusing your position (be it toothless or not) as an administrator to force others to change their articles, as well as reverting without consensus. I also feel that you should meet me half way if you are going to request sources. It is impolite to put the onus of defending my work on me without offering to do some of the work yourself. Had you just done that from the beginning, none of this would have happened at all.

xoxo, Avriette 01:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

If cultivatuion is legal in some US states it could be put in that cultivatuion is legal in some US states. IO am happy to take your word on that one. There is an article on legal issues of cannabis and maybe that is the place to put it. Saying the line breaks was a nightmare wasn't an attack on you. Are you happy with the text as it is. I am just another editor here, SqueakBox 01:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

First I am not an admin. Second I have a militantly pro cannabis stand, limited by the confines of NPOV (I was trying to rescue Wikipedia from Cognition's POV pushing in creating the association). Thirdly I have contributed a lot to articles (esp Spanish language bios) but also to a range as wide as your own including lots of vandalism patrols and welcoming new users. But, as they say here:Que le vaya bien. Peace, SqueakBox 01:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ehhhh. Ok. Well, whatever. I don't wish to fight at all. Note I have updated the page. I think, as I said above, that the article should really focus on the botany, since it is such a rich subject. The article now includes sources -- none legal in nature -- as well as a few additional links, additional pictures, and no linebreaks, per your request. Please remember it is very hard to edit files which do not have linebreaks in VIM as it is largely a line-oriented editor. If you have changes you'd like to make to the article, go on ahead and do so, but again I think the legality should be left elsewhere. Avriette 02:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: vandalism

User:172.209.46.233 had changed carbon dioxide to oxygen. That was and still is his/her's only edit and I'm pretty sure that plants take in carbon dioxide and not oxygen. Jobe6 00:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

i'm going to revert your edit unless you can provide a source. you may notice that i placed several sources on that article, and am the author of that section. if you don't know what you're talking about, don't edit. Avriette 00:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] mons pubis

Regarding the NSFW/copyvio photo: I meant the first image, but I wasn't clear in my edit summary; your second photo I deleted by mistake. My apologies. tregoweth 17:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: admin nomination

Hi - You left me a note that says:

You recently nominated user:tregoweth for adminship. I had a recent encounter with them whereby an image I added to mons pubis was removed as either copyvio or "nsfw". It wasn't clear at all from the edit comment why this was done. Upon asking the user why this was done, they apologized and said that it was accidental. Having edited the user's talk page, it is on my watch list. I am continually amazed to see how many of these minor altercations the user gets in to. Would you mind saying something as an objective third party who seems to have support for the user? Thanks, Avriette 18:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about this note I left on tregoweth's page. I left a note like that on the talk page of everyone on this list who objectively met the criteria (top 600 editors by edit count in article space who are not already admins). The point of the list is to highlight a fair number of "high volume" users who for whatever reason are not admins. '*' on the list is added by the users themselves. Tregoweth did not put a '*' by his/her name, so I presume is not interested in becoming an admin. I have had little direct interaction with most of the folks on the list, including tregoweth. My bias (based on knowing he/she has made many thousands of edits over many months, but not on any direct interaction) is that this is a person who has put a lot of time and energy into wikipedia and is almost certainly well-intentioned. It's certainly possible that some small percentage of his/her edits are done in error, but at a rate of 500/week even a 0.1% "error rate" adds up to 2 "bad" edits a month. If you have concerns, I'd strongly suggest you discuss them with tregoweth directly. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pistol article

Given your interest in firearms, have you had a look at the pistol article, the "tactics" section of which is an incoherent ramble? I don't know enough about armed combat tactics to fix it.--Robert Merkel 05:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Robert. I could contribute substantial information to that section myself. And I agree with your assertion that it is drivel. However, I have been considering adding a "close quarters battle" article, which is a common term in pistol tactics discussion ("CQB"). I think an article on pistol tactics really belongs there, and the mechanicals and description of a pistol belongs in the pistol article. What do you think? I'm happy to provide sources, etc, on pistol combat tactics. But again, I think it belongs in a different article. Whatever the case, the section as it stands is awful and needs to go. xoxo, Avriette 06:28, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both your suggestions, though, I'd suggest that the pistol article needs a couple of sentences of summary on the topic as well as a pointer to the main CQB article. I'll try to help out if I can. --Robert Merkel 08:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

awright. i'm a busy dude, but i'll start putting it together. Avriette 23:30, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, somewhat of a random responce but i just wanted to thankyou for putting up that hangun cartridge comparison picture, speaking as someone who has no idea about ammunition types its very useful!

[edit] Naming Conventions for Hawaiian Monarchs

Hello, I know I bothered you about this earlier but I'm wondering if I could trouble you again to contribute to a (slightly different) discussion on Hawaii's royals. (I apologize nothing concrete happened from the previous discussion; that was largely my fault for not keeping the discussion going.) Anyway, I hope we can eventually agree on a written standard for the naming of Hawai‘i's monarchs. We're having a (slow) discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style#Names of monarchs, and your views on the conflict would be most appreciated. This time, I will try to be more consistent in keeping the conversation going. Thank you! 青い(Aoi) 08:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about "bothering" me. :) And as for it happening slowly, isn't that quite... fitting for anything Hawaii-related? Avriette 23:52, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ummon

Hey- I've ntoiced that you are fairly interested in Ummon (due to a large email in one of your subpages, where you characterize a separate Ummon page as fancruft; I certainly hope my efforts will change your mind w/r/t that, and also due to some early edits where you mentioned some research- I'd appreciate you adding that research to the page). I've conjured out of thin air a quite respectable article at Yunmen Wenyan, and if you could fact-check it, or possibly expand the Simmons AI section, that would be pretty cool. --Maru (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Categorization

Hello! We are working on a new system that will categorize the users. Please take a moment to move your user page into the category Category:Wikipedians in Virginia and removing your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Virginia page.

To add your name to the category, please use the tag [[Category:Wikipedians in Viginia|Avriette]] to sort yourself correctly.

--skraz (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

how about you do it yourself? Avriette 00:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raging Bull

I think you should definitely put a link in the article to the video, if you have it hosted elsewhere on the web. While I agree that stock photos aren't that interesting, the stock photo does show the unique front cylinder latch on the Raging Bull (while Dan Wesson revolvers have front latches, that's the only latch--the rear of the cylinder operates off the same front button). I will take one of the pictures on your photo site and see if I can pump up the brightness a bit (I wrote some cool adaptive contrast enhancing sofware for the company I work for a couple of years ago) and see if I can get a brighter image to post. scot 14:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the (IMO) best image of the bunch, before contrast enhancement

And after contrast enhancement

I see now that I might not have grabbed the highest available resolution images there. Pick the image you'd like to see in the article, and I'll fiddle with the contrast on the high res versions and post the results. scot 16:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wars of Scottish Independence/to do

Hi. Wars of Scottish Independence/to do is in the main article namespace, but clearly isn't an article. Can I ask you either to move it to somewhere appropriate (like a talk page) or have it deleted. THanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 04:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

uh, i don't remember ever making that page, and it doesn't seem relevant. so clobber it. i added a {{db}} to it. sorry for any trouble. Avriette 09:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

This is your last chance to respond to the peer review comment on the article for The Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation. If not, its listing will disappear very soon and will go into this archive.

Please look at the article, and respond in the peer review page. I am waiting for a response.

(If you have Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide, I'd humbly appreciate it. His comments on the film need to go into that article so that it can be finished.) --Slgrandson 00:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not, and it pains me to say this, qualified to review an article on the Care Bears. As such, I've abstained from commenting during the review process. Avriette

[edit] curious about your comment

in your opposition, you said "Arbitrating is not Policing!!!" i was curious what i said that sounded like my arbitration would be policing. Kingturtle 06:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been a Wikipedian since February 2003, serving as a contributor, copyeditor, policeman, administrator and bureaucrat. "police"-anything doesn't fit into the equation. I would think that's rather clear. The last thing we need is a bunch of hotheads with some self-aggrandizing philosophy justifying their boot on others' necks. Avriette 06:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

by policing, i was referring to keeping in wikipedia in order against vandalism. i never said i'd be policing when i was arbitrating. just wanted to clear that up. Kingturtle 06:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, you didn't make it clear in what you were saying. You didn't say anything that redeemed what you said there. It's not hard to make a distinction. I think I have been clear three times now. Wikipedia is not about banning, policing, trolls, what it "should" be, etc. I don't want your opinion in my encylopedia. What I want is fair arbitration with the understanding that everyone should and can contribute. Walk away. If somebody writes some shitty article about Reptilian ship, that's their own goddamn business. Walk away. You're not the police. Arbcom or not. Avriette 06:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

those who write shitty articles are not vandals. a vandal writes "dfjkgdf" or "bush is a fag" - and if we don't fix those edits, then wikipedia is a mess and quite useless. that's what i meant by police. thanks for explaining. ta ta. Kingturtle 07:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. If you can't accept that other people are allowed to leave their rat-turd droppings all over the encylopedia, and that it makes it "a mess", then you've got no authority arbitrating. Let me paint an example. I hate star trek articles. So let me say that I'd purge all star trek articles. Okay, but I'd alienate users like SimonP. Like it or not, they contribute a lot of articles and janitor a lot of stuff for the rest of us. So you either recuse yourself or you accept that some people think that the encyclopedia should include a lot of crap. But crusading from ArbCom is not what I want, and not what the encylopedia needs. Avriette 07:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

are you saying i should allow the person at 213.138.128.13 to make edits like [8] and [9] and i should just let those edits sit there? those rat turds are ok? they don't make wikipedia a mess? i've never said anything about purging articles i don't like. i'm talking about stopping vandalism like these two links i've just shown you. you can't possibly think those two edits are helping wikipedia and that person is contributing. you've obviously got an axe to grind, but i'm not a person who purges articles and i oppose most deletions. Kingturtle 07:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Being in this community means you understand that you're a janitor. When I eat a bunch of newspaper and take some giant fibrous shit in the toilet and it stops the plumbing up for days, does the janitor come into my office and say, "gee, avriette, what a jerk you are for stopping up my toilet"? No. he silently fixes it, and he walks away. We're not here to police things. Even violent, disgusting or stupid articles. That's why I opposed, and you still don't get it. Avriette 07:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My application to the Arbitration Committee

I noticed that you voted against me because I referred to "punishments". I realize that my wording was poor on that, and in fact against my beliefs about what the ArbCom should do. I've revised my statement as such. Ral315 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tina Fey as a feminist

She told Bust Magazine in spring 2004 that she considers herself a feminist, but I cannot find an online copy of the interview.--Fallout boy 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Christopher Golden.jpg

Could you update the "PD" attribution of this image? Avriette 04:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, sorry, i'm quite new to wiki (signed up few weeks ago) what does that mean? Thanks Paxomen 15:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

As an administrator I find it is only appropriate for me to remove personal attacks. Among the opposers in that particular ArbCom vote, there was a growing agreement that the statement included attacks. As such I only carried out my duties in removing them. NSLE _(T+C) 05:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with your actions. Avriette 06:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You are free to. I stand by them, and that's the last I'm saying of it. If you feel strongly, feel free to report it at WP:AN/I or similar. NSLE _(T+C) 06:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother, she's got a habit of personally attacking people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester (talk • contribs) 18:15, January 14, 2006

(Above by User:Swatjester) ... I'm not here to "not bother" with other users. We need to interact to get things done. Perhaps there are enough of us here now that we can't all play in our own corners of the wikipedia. That's not a problem if we cooperate. Your attitude is not particularly cooperative. Avriette 23:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

And neither is yours. You attacked me personally on your very first remark to me. Apparently you aren showing others the same courtesy. Swatjester 02:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cabal ub

I figured you wouldn't mind my fixing the spelling error, but I erred on the side of the holy jihad against people editing other's userspaces. cheers ("denies"). Unless of course it's some Cabal thing I'm not privy to. Avriette 01:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Any productive edit, or any edit with a productive inted is welcome such as spelling/grammer corrections, npovisation (when applicable), translations to Turkish/Japanese, or anything you can think of. If I like it, Ill keep it. I generally like it. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)