| Revision as of 03:52, 3 August 2006 editRatagast (talk | contribs)5 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:47, 3 August 2006 edit undoAbscissa (talk | contribs)954 edits →Roman Catholic?Next edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| ::Good grief. I know this will sound harsh, but I think you should perhaps consider finding another hobby if you think "I thought I heard that..." is a valid basis for inclusion of a claim in an encyclopedia!--] 22:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | ::Good grief. I know this will sound harsh, but I think you should perhaps consider finding another hobby if you think "I thought I heard that..." is a valid basis for inclusion of a claim in an encyclopedia!--] 22:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::HAhahahahahaahaahaa. - ] 06:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:47, 3 August 2006
| This is Avant Guard's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Schools
Sir, I heartily appreciate your suggestion of where such information belongs; but when previous information regarding the truth is repeatedly omitted, I find that some randy-pan discussion page is worthless in providing an adequate solution to finding a home for the truth. I'm sure you would not suggest that backlashes to omissions of the Holocaust be redirected to a discussion page (supposing one were to deny the veracity of the Holocaust and repeatedly omit information pertaining to it). As I have said, the truth is being shoved into oblivion - I am not under the impression that the truth is based on popular appeal, and it actually is an encyclopedic fact that the truth is being omitted here. If readers cannot have the truth about a subject, then they should have the truth about it's suppression. If one cannot be allowed relevant fact, then related fact is the next best thing. Would you not agree?
Schools
Please do not deny another's right to release pertinent information. Thank you.
Antifemminism
Thanks. You may later user the template by inserting this code: ]. └ / talk 11:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppets
Hey, I thought you should know that you're way behind in marking CapnCrack socks. There was recently a huge list of socks on the WP:CK page that hadn't been marked or blocked, but someone simply removed the list of socks rather than marking and blocking them. It looks to me like CapnCrack is beating the system. The admins and the regular users are scared to even mark and block all of those socks. Meanwhile, he has vandalized several articles and created several pages of nothing but fabrications, and you guys haven't caught it yet. Some of the vandalism has been up as long as a month. Sad, really. Castled 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh well then, thanks for the tip. I'll report those sockpuppets right now and make sure that their contributions are examined.--The Count of Monte Cristo 05:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, Count. I've blocked the new accounts. I think I went thru everything. Let me know if there was something I missed.--Firsfron of Ronchester 07:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Roman Catholic?
Is there any reason you added me to the category?--Jimbo Wales 19:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I thought that I had heard that you were Roman Catholic, so I added you to the category. If this isn't the case, I apologize, and will remove it for you. Thanks for letting me know.--The Count of Monte Cristo 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good grief. I know this will sound harsh, but I think you should perhaps consider finding another hobby if you think "I thought I heard that..." is a valid basis for inclusion of a claim in an encyclopedia!--Jimbo Wales 22:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- HAhahahahahaahaahaa. - Abscissa 06:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)