User talk:Benapgar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The current date and time is 11 June 2008 T 00:13 UTC.

Contents

Links

Archives

Subpages

Wikipedia

Talk

Intro

Did you want me to analyse pros and cons about your suggestion in detail?DanielDemaret 10:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

policy

Before I do any 500 page deconstruction which might take a while, I was wondering whether you are aware that we are discussing a Wikipedia talk:Censorship policy, and I was thinking that perhaps you would like to discuss the topic there? The cartoon article has so many other aspects that the discussion about showing the images can so easily lost. DanielDemaret 22:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No misunderstandings, thank you for asking

At the moment, if it is ok with you, I am waiting until the discussion about the pictures and the intro comes to a peaceful consensus, so that the real discussion, now going on everywhere else in the world, about what this event really means, can ensue. At the moment, I am much more interested in Bonobo chimps in the ruins of Sumeria and the fluttering of chaotics in dissipative structures anyway. :) DanielDemaret 18:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Image:Cyde.png This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: I strongly opposed Cyde Weys' request for adminship. --Ben 21:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Hi, Ben. I have fixed the reference in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology so outside people could find the RFC discussion. Moving of a part of a discussion into a subpage is a kind of unusual, but does not seems to have sinister purposes. In fact it simplifies finding the discussion. I do not think it is worth to spend time arguing the editing of the talk page - better argue the editing of the article or just edit it. This my view, you could ask another admin, who may have a different opinion on the matter abakharev 03:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Ben, I'm sure you'll ignore or delete this, or respond with more personal attacks, but I'm writing anyway to say that you risk being blocked for disruption again at Intelligent Design. Whatever the merits of your argument (and I don't know whether it has merit or not), there appears to be no consensus for your edits on the page, and as infuriating as that must be, you have to accept it. Either find editors who will support your position, or give it up and walk away. Better still would be if you could find a way to work with the other editors on ID, but somehow I don't think that's going to happen, so walking away is your best bet. Whatever you decide, it has to be civil and non-disruptive. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

ID Poll

Shouldn't you clarify the purpose of Talk:Intelligent design/Poll1? Personally I hate taking part in polls unless I understand for what purpose and how my answers may be used. Lambiam 10:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's what I think. The answers to the questions in the poll are not going to tell you what the respondents would expect an article on ID to be. Perhaps more important is to know what they think it should be, but the answers are not able to reveal that either. Finally, this is Wikipedia. Apart from verifiable objective facts like history, principals, positions of some boards of education, court cases and such, the article should explain the claims made by ID "theory" and the criticism of its opponents. This does not depend on whether the reader loves ID, hates it, or never heard of it. How much it should go into detail is a matter of consensus between the active editors. I sense that there is some controversy underlying this. Lambiam 22:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation!

Dear Benapgar:

You have the honor of being the first one to respond to my survey!

Thank you for your participation. Your responses to the survey are much appreciated!

The final essay should be posted on my user page no later than March 27.

Shuo Xiang 12:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Talk:Intelligent design

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Happy editing! --Rory096 06:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A request for arbitration has been filed regarding your behavior

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Benapgar FeloniousMonk 04:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

An invitation...

Ben,

I invite you to come and be a part of the ResearchID.org wiki. You will find more acceptance for your ID expressions. -- Joseph C. Campana 14:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Re your ArbCom request

See diff. AvB ÷ talk 07:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why I have been listed as a respondent? I really can't think of any reason for that. David | Talk 10:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm also, I believe, listed as the respondent named Grinder. Here at Wikipedia, and in Google Groups as well, my handle is Grinder2112 | Talk. I'll happily reply to whatever assertion you're making, but I don't see how anything you've said applies to me. Perhaps you can elaborate on what you think I would be answering for. Grinder2112 21:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a Dispute Resolution process. Step one, comment on the user's talk pages or appropriate article talk pages. Step two, mediation. Step three, RfC. Step four, RfAr. Harvestdancer 16:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding [2]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, --⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well sometimes it's pretty XXXXXXX hard to keep your cool around dumbXXXX conspiracy pieces of XXXX trying to XXXX with you. Thanks for taking it down though. FeloniousMonk is probably loling his XXX off right now and searching for admins to ban me forever. --Ben 08:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I heard about it from someone else and considered it certainly warranted some time off for you to think about things. Which is a remarkable achievement for a single edit, but that was a really spectacular one. I think it was the piercing pic [3] that did it. This is an encyclopedia project, not a message board. Thanks.
(Possibly more helpfully: working effective with people you consider complete idiots without blowing your top is pretty much mandatory to get things done on Wikipedia. It's not something that's optional.) - David Gerard 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Cyde upped David Gerard's block to 1 month. Not coincidentally, he is also an involved party in the RfAr filed against me that was just accepted: WP:RfAr#Benapgar. --Ben 21:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

None of which has anything to do with the comments, which were in gross violation of WP:NPA, that you were blocked for. Can you give us a good reason why you shouldn't be kept blocked indefinitely? You don't contribute to the encyclopedia. All you do is cause disruption and insult other users in disgusting and obscene fashions. If you were in my house I would kick you out immediately. Well guess what, Wikipedia is the house of Wikipedians. You don't seem to understand that you don't have a right to be here. --Cyde Weys 21:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, to participate in the arbitation you filed against me. --Ben 21:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't file it. And, frankly, your most recent conduct makes the RFAr unnecessary. --Cyde Weys 21:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You didn't file it? Oh, ok, well then I guess that means you are totally uninvolved with it. The RFAr is not unnecessary according to ArbCom, so you better convince them it isn't, not me, and yourself. --Ben 22:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You've had six unique blocks for your continued attacks on other editors. This behavior is simply not acceptable. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Then YOU block me. --Ben 22:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Do it. Just make sure it's for longer than one month :-P Cyde Weys 22:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Now Ryan Delaney has blocked me indefinitely. Let's see if he is involved in the RfAr against m... well what do you know? --Ben 01:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben, you practically begged for it. Just zis Guy you know? 23:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


T H E
E N D