User talk:Paravant/Archive1
lhude sing goddamn Slurm und Drang (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Was? Ich kann nicht alt Englisch sprechen. Nur Schul Deutsch oder English.--Paravant (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- You will do just fine here, meine schmetterlingchen! Slurm und Drang (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am sure I will xD --Paravant (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- The complete pome, a parody of Sumer Is Icumen In,
goes like this:
- The complete pome, a parody of Sumer Is Icumen In,
- I am sure I will xD --Paravant (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- You will do just fine here, meine schmetterlingchen! Slurm und Drang (talk) 04:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ancient Music
- by Ezra Pound
- Sing goddamn, damn. Sing goddamn!
- Sing goddamn, damn. Sing goddamn!
- Winter is i-cumin in,
- Lhude sing goddamn!
- Raineth drop and staineth slop
- And how the wind doth ram
- Sing goddamn!
- Skiddeth bus and sloppeth us,
- An ague hath my ham
- Freezeth river, turneth liver,
- Damn you, sing goddamn.
- Goddamn, goddamn, tis why I am goddamn,
- So gainst the winter’s balm.
- Sing goddamn, sing goddamn, DAMN!
- (for your amusement) Slurm und Drang (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Would you be so kind,,,[edit]
As to redirect the Miekal account to this one? That way, people like me don't see that a relatively new editor is also somehow a moderator and freak out? Thanks in advance. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- ^ FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 11:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Chaos is fun though!--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Why the...[edit]
...change? --Castaigne (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Been something I've been mewling over for a while.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Locked out[edit]
Hi. Just out of curiousity, why was I locked out of the multi-level marketing page? I made a talk discussion about the changes I made to the article, and it kept getting changed back without any discussion on my talk topic. Then I got locked out. Is there something I'm missing? What's the point of the talk section? And why was I (the one trying to discuss the change) the one locked out of editing?
--Youlovedave (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Because you're the one fighting with us about it. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've put some comments in the talk page if you want to discuss it there. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for polluting the wiki with my shit[edit]
I was acting far more insane than usual for the last few days. KOMF
Why vandalbin The King (uhuhuh)?[edit]
Seriously, he's pretty harmless, and as far as I've seen he hasn't really harassed anyone, but only "mutually trolled" those who took up the gauntlet and replied to the various obvious troll-posts. I kind of think of him as this guy (he's responding to this question, btw). ScepticWombat (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Because Trolls is trolls and should be contained. If others disagree, eh, ok.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- There are charming trolls and really ugly trolls (the latter includes RW's IP Whac-A-Mole block racist anti-Semite, mikemikev). Considering the bait The King uses for his angling, I really see no huge problem with him. I mean look at the quaint whackiness of it all: Bacon and Tyler Swift(?!?) It's actually quite hilarious in a sort of twisted, comedic twilight zone way. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I do find him funny, I'd just we save our "ok with trolls" button for the ones who are really good, such as Rob on certain days, instead of a garden variety like Elvis. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- There are charming trolls and really ugly trolls (the latter includes RW's IP Whac-A-Mole block racist anti-Semite, mikemikev). Considering the bait The King uses for his angling, I really see no huge problem with him. I mean look at the quaint whackiness of it all: Bacon and Tyler Swift(?!?) It's actually quite hilarious in a sort of twisted, comedic twilight zone way. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Help[edit]
Please revdel that shit unless Weaseloid or David's going to do it first.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Well I was only referring to the edit summary that included my name but ok.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Could you take care of what he just did here too?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
If you want to archive things[edit]
Perhaps log in first? That way we know it's not just a random drive by arsehole. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wasn't me. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, why let a bon 'archive' something when we have a bot that does that? Or is the bot borked. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Bot is borked. I also don't see how the "" around archive are needed, given they did archive the stuff. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, why let a bon 'archive' something when we have a bot that does that? Or is the bot borked. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Batman block[edit]
I don't think Batman is a vandal. What he wrote was accurate.Crimson Guard (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- My mistake, I misread what he posted. Apologies. Crimson Guard (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Rational for deletion of Western Sahara?[edit]
Could I please get an explanation? While the article started out short, you yourself acknowledge there should be a n article. Plus most of the important stuff was already in there (WS former Spanish colony, currently occupied by Morocco, claimed by Polisario) so please, if you care to explain what you did, I am all ears... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Block of Fat Aardvark[edit]
Too excessive in time? Clyde Winters The Black Celt (Caledonia) (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. It's all progression - We go from short blocks to longer term blocks via doubling when the offending behavior does not cease. The most recent doubling was for block evasion. And i had debated instead of doubling it squaring it, so you know, i was being lenient: 64 days is much shorter than, i think it was 2 and some years.
- K- didn't notice it was also for evasion. Hopefully they become a useful contributor in the future. Clyde Winters the Black Roman Centurion Guarding Hydrians Wall In Scotland Against the Savage Man-eating White Celtic Britons (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I doubt it, given they pulled this same stuff a while back and sat out for a year, and have come back doing the exact same things. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, trolls will be trolls. Clyde Winters Hero of the Battle of Mons Graupius Where the Evil Picts were Vanquished by the Superior Black Roman Legionaries and their Melanin (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I doubt it, given they pulled this same stuff a while back and sat out for a year, and have come back doing the exact same things. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- K- didn't notice it was also for evasion. Hopefully they become a useful contributor in the future. Clyde Winters the Black Roman Centurion Guarding Hydrians Wall In Scotland Against the Savage Man-eating White Celtic Britons (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Chicken Coop[edit]
You're in the coop, Miekal Paravant. Have fun.--ReptoidKiller (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC):
- You act like i hide that this isn't my first account, also, that isn't coop material.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Two things: 1) Knwoing you're Miekal tells me that I'm wasting my time reasonign with you and 2) Why the hell can someone decoop themselves? It defeats the purpose.--ReptoidKiller (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Because if you had any kind of case, someone else would recoop it. You don't, so we haven't. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Two things: 1) Knwoing you're Miekal tells me that I'm wasting my time reasonign with you and 2) Why the hell can someone decoop themselves? It defeats the purpose.--ReptoidKiller (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
In the future, though[edit]
Let someone besides you decoop things about yourself. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
ReptoidKiller[edit]
The vandalbinning of him was a lil harsh, didn't stop inserting the YouTube-link? Talking back to sysops mods ain't no vandalism last time I checked.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's more to do that the only interest they have in coming here is to post youtube spam (which, yes, it won't actually stop, but does control the ability to do so) and to then in bad faith argue with us about it. If they were actually here to engage with us sure, but they are not. We can't in theory ban for that, so it's better to limit how much of a mess they can cause on pages with said bad-faith arguing.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thats implying I was going to post more Youtube links, which I;ve made clear I wouldnt do, as you guys are too close-minded, evidentally.--ReptoidKiller2 (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I still don't see promises of not also arguing with us in which you just say "but guys im right" and then using escape hatches.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- you already have an account, use that one. it still has one edit before the brake turns on, and thats all you need to promise to be a good faith debator
- I still don't see promises of not also arguing with us in which you just say "but guys im right" and then using escape hatches.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thats implying I was going to post more Youtube links, which I;ve made clear I wouldnt do, as you guys are too close-minded, evidentally.--ReptoidKiller2 (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah sure, ok. No more Youtube spam. Though I'd like yo know how you define bad and good faith in this context.--ReptoidKiller (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- not also arguing with us in which you just say "but guys im right" and then use escape hatches.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey[edit]
What's up my man? Can you check my user rights and tell me what they say? TheAtheistComrade (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sysop and Auto. Check in like... idk, 10 minutes? I noticed the same issue when I had my Sysop removed a bit ago and then again when i got put into sysoprevoke (which overrides mod as i've noticed, amusingly) that it doesn't seem to take effect right away.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well after you did the test and nothing happened I reclogged again, and this time it went back to normal. Thanks for the uhh..demotion. Not a phrase you hear everyday. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- After 4 years (oh god) this site has ruined my understand of the words "Promotion" and "Demotion".--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well after you did the test and nothing happened I reclogged again, and this time it went back to normal. Thanks for the uhh..demotion. Not a phrase you hear everyday. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The Missing Evolutionary Link[edit]
The link to the International Jewish Anti-Zionism Network on Zionism (the Jews opposed to Zionism section) appears to be broken. Can you fix it? TheAtheistComrade (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- It appears they moved their site. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:13, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Request for Zionism page[edit]
Hi, things have calmed down a bit in the talk section, and I've been asking if we can take a look at edits I make on a section-by-section basis in my Sandbox, and thrash it out there. I've tried to get a commitment from Avenger and Arisboch that if, after whatever discussion is had -- with an opportunity to question my claims and choices, and for me to defend them - - then that section can replace (or be added to) the actual entry. Does that sound acceptable to you?---Mona- (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- You get an unlocked page when i know it wont dissolve back into an edit war. Get agreements that what you want put in is acceptable to the mob and you get to have the page editable. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I fear that Mona's opinions are even "out there" for some of those that partially agree with her. Or in other words: I doubt much of her views on Zionism will make it into mainspace. Of course, there is always the possibility of an Essay:Zionism - why it tastes like cucumbers Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Tweets[edit]
Can I link the public, social media tweets? Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Feel blocked back a thousand times![edit]
Yes I have to! It is fun! Also sometimes the fact that something is an edit conflict makes my statements make more sense... As I am not at all good with identi-stuff Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
May I interest you in Eric Flint?[edit]
I have devoured his 1632 series (the first book can be downloaded for free and legally on his own website, just google it). Given that you like Turtledove, Flint might interest you as well... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh good lord 1632, i've been meaning to read that for a while now. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 13:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Do it! Do it noooooouuuuuuwwwwwww!!!! ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ask again in 2 months when my Work-load of -actual- history book readings has gone down :P im already doing readings for both US immigration History and ANE History, I don't need -fake- events in the mix as well--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ask again in 2 months when my Work-load of -actual- history book readings has gone down :P im already doing readings for both US immigration History and ANE History, I don't need -fake- events in the mix as well--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 14:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Do it! Do it noooooouuuuuuwwwwwww!!!! ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Greenwald in CAIR article[edit]
Could you explain why you took that out? As I just posted over there:
- Once the article is unprotected, I'd add to the support and endorsements section the ACLU and some other prominent civil libertarian groups and people. RW was founded in part to counter the bullshit at Conservepedia, and the bullshit about CAIR over there is that they are a terrorist organization and not really interested in civil liberties. In my view, endorsements and awards from reputable civil libertarians provides worthwhile information to counter an insidious -- and false -- wingnut smear.----Mona- (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Because people are arguing about it. I met you half way on this one by only commenting it out.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- I guess I don't know what that means. Commenting it out?---Mona- (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's still in the article, but is hidden from view.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- You canh do that by adding comment tags. Like this <!-- thaen the text you want to type and thaen -->. I hope that helped clear that one up. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's still in the article, but is hidden from view.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- I guess I don't know what that means. Commenting it out?---Mona- (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Because people are arguing about it. I met you half way on this one by only commenting it out.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Whoa. Moderator protection level[edit]
For two weeks. Are things really that bad now? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, Mona is hitting all Israel/Palestine articles.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Edit wars involving sysops and all. It's easier to just lock the page down and force everybody to the talk page than half the party (and is atleast vaguely more fair about it). It's atleast gotten us somewhere on the Zionism page! --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's only a temporary solution, since she is sharpening the knifes on PacWalker's sup-page already.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Surprised this user hasn't been vandal binned to actually give people a chance to respond before the next word salad gets put in. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- And she agreed to not edit the actual Zionism page, so let her go ahead so she can make up her version to present to ours. Then we can summarily say yes or no without it being over an endless fight or debate because her version will be there to actually compare.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Shouldn't there also be a glorious "Israel can do no wrong" ZOoRW version (no the current one isn't, it sits somewhere between the extremes, but don't ask me where) of the article for "balance"? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, but if you don't want to look like laggards I would get our version of the Zionism article spruced up. This is an opportunity for people with real interest in the subject to get a good article going, not to sit on our heels doing fuck all while somebody tells us our article is shit.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- "Then we can summarily say yes or no" I see. No discussion? No reasoning given? And why would that be? Paravant, I had inferred that you were nonaligned on the Zionism issue -- you are not---Mona- (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Odds are i will find both versions of the article shit because I think the issue ofthe Arab-Israeli conflict is supremely idiotic and needs to be solved by both sides being adults.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC
- You said the other version was "ours." You are pro-Zionist. I just tweeted this: "Mona Holland @MonaHol 3h3 hours ago Over at @RationalWiki a Zionist sysop just told other Zios I may draft a Zionism entry for consideration but it won't be discussed." My followers are not inconsequential and I will not be placated and merely humored. I take RW editing seriously and give a lot of energy to it, and much knowledge ;and documentation on select topics. ---Mona- (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- "Ours" as in "RW's current version" but if you want to take me as a Zionist sure, but I have no love for Israel and would rather it go fuck off. But, you know, you can jump the gun and commit libel if you'd like, but I don't see it getting you anywhere.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Calling an unnamed RW sysop a Zionist is "libel?" (Your law degree is from Acme School of Plumbing and Law, yes?) Anyway, when I first joined I was super enthusiastic and saw many articles with that banner saying they needed work and documentation. So, I tweeted that anyone with time should consider joining. Therefore, I am obligated to apprise my tweeps of my actual view of things here as those views evolve. I take being told I can draft a Zionism article but a sysop has told those who oppose my views that there will be no discussion of it to be rather telling. (Also telling is that you know "our" version as it stands is unsourced shit.)---Mona- (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what law work do you do again? CorruptUser (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Was this information voluntarily given to you by Mona? If not pull your head in; this is pretty much doxing and no-one here has got any time for that. Tielec01 (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is clearly not doxxing. She volunteered her name (resp. claimed that to be her name), claimed that she is 59 or someting, claimed that she's a lawyer (can't remember though, if she said, where she practices), claimed that she's buddies and/or colleagues with Glenn Greenwald. Entering her name and "lawyer" into Google is no doxxing by any sane definition, since she volunteered her name and occupation here on this very wiki.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Was this information voluntarily given to you by Mona? If not pull your head in; this is pretty much doxing and no-one here has got any time for that. Tielec01 (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nownow, don't pretend, that's just insulting. I've already summed up why you're wrong on your talkpage, respond there.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh Mona FFS. Not for the first time you have completely misinterpreted the actions and intentions of a RW member. Not only that, but you have sent out a juvenile tweet advertising your own lack of comprehension. Way to go. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't believe I've misinterpreted the commentary on this page about my draft article---Mona- (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- You really have. " When I called it our article I meant "Rw's current version" When i Said summarily rejected or accepted, I used the wrong word, and do apologize for any misunderstanding these have caused about that. " --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Look who's become all silent now... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- You really have. " When I called it our article I meant "Rw's current version" When i Said summarily rejected or accepted, I used the wrong word, and do apologize for any misunderstanding these have caused about that. " --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't believe I've misinterpreted the commentary on this page about my draft article---Mona- (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, what law work do you do again? CorruptUser (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- You said the other version was "ours." You are pro-Zionist. I just tweeted this: "Mona Holland @MonaHol 3h3 hours ago Over at @RationalWiki a Zionist sysop just told other Zios I may draft a Zionism entry for consideration but it won't be discussed." My followers are not inconsequential and I will not be placated and merely humored. I take RW editing seriously and give a lot of energy to it, and much knowledge ;and documentation on select topics. ---Mona- (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Odds are i will find both versions of the article shit because I think the issue ofthe Arab-Israeli conflict is supremely idiotic and needs to be solved by both sides being adults.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC
- "Then we can summarily say yes or no" I see. No discussion? No reasoning given? And why would that be? Paravant, I had inferred that you were nonaligned on the Zionism issue -- you are not---Mona- (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, but if you don't want to look like laggards I would get our version of the Zionism article spruced up. This is an opportunity for people with real interest in the subject to get a good article going, not to sit on our heels doing fuck all while somebody tells us our article is shit.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Shouldn't there also be a glorious "Israel can do no wrong" ZOoRW version (no the current one isn't, it sits somewhere between the extremes, but don't ask me where) of the article for "balance"? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- And she agreed to not edit the actual Zionism page, so let her go ahead so she can make up her version to present to ours. Then we can summarily say yes or no without it being over an endless fight or debate because her version will be there to actually compare.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Edit wars involving sysops and all. It's easier to just lock the page down and force everybody to the talk page than half the party (and is atleast vaguely more fair about it). It's atleast gotten us somewhere on the Zionism page! --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 15:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Guys, gloating and gossip are not a respectable activity. Also, gloating is a form of dead horse beating. SmartFeller (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- The horse is not dead, it still shits all over a plethora of articles.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- South Park taught us that people shit when they die. What about horses? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- South Park taught us that people shit when they die. What about
Feel blocked back pi plus e seconds[edit]
it probably is Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Could someone direct me to the infraction the Cyrillic alphabet user committed to warrant a long block?---Mona- (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Edit Warring followed by vandalism. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- To what article? I'd like to see the fossil record and versions.---Mona- (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- The vandalism was to Paravant's userpage, if you're curious. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:18, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- To what article? I'd like to see the fossil record and versions.---Mona- (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Edit Warring followed by vandalism. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
An unpleasant mod-block[edit]
Um, why did you block the "unpleasant experience" discussion? I wished to reply to a misunderstanding woiht Corrupt User and obviously now I cannot.---Mona- (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Because that isn't the place for this debate. HCM gets worse when people start talking about it in -other- locations, in particular other locations unrelated to the problem--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Lemur[edit]
I'm a lemur. You can't blame me for wanting to be involved in discussions. Also my name's not actually Larry (it's a secret), just saying!!! Larry! - (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Why remove the AFD?[edit]
Not harming anything. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- For the same reason we don't wait a week for obvious delete votes. Wikilawyering is wikilawyering, regardless of "harm" done. You're also a few hours late to that party. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry[edit]
Did not mean to make life difficult with edit-warring at Cynthia McKinney. Have tried to engage on the talk page but the same old drivel gets repeated ad infinitum. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you do anything productive on this site?[edit]
trolling talk pages and removing content seems to be all you do. Where are your contributions?Krom (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- 4 years across and fighting vandalism + trying to keep the late great edit conflict of 2015 from being an edit war. What's it to you--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Krom what are you trying to achieve? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
National Weather Service[edit]
I'm sure that at least one person may find use in having that redirect. What valid reason did you have for deleting it? The reason I ask is because there is only one organization with the name, with capital letters "National Weather Service". Can you name even one other situation where a country's national meteorological service is named, in English, "National Weather Service"? Considering that this wiki is in English, what are the vast majority of people who type in "National Weather Service" going to be looking for? In the United Kingdom, they would look for "Met Office", in Australia, they would search for "Bureau of Meteorology", in Canada, they would look for "Meteorological Service of Canada" or "Environment Canada", and so on. The only thing I can find that comes close-ish is South African Weather Service, and I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone is going to be searching for "National Weather Service" and expecting to find South African Weather Service. And how is "National Weather Service", in caps (because it is a proper noun), vague? I don't want to cause problems or anything, but I don't think your rationale is realistic. 72.198.107.13 (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Bahrain[edit]
As the idiot seems to have retired for the day, please can you unlock Bahrain? I would like to do some work on the article later today. Thank you. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Don't start fights.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Errr.. what?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- But thank you for unlocking. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Errr.. what?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Who is an idiot? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Can I please decide myself how I want to organize my talk page?[edit]
All I request is for one particular derailing comment by Mona to not obstruct the main discussion. When I did this by hiding it, you had a problem with that. Thaen I put it in its own section - something which happened over at talk:Zionism numerous times without incident. And you were still not happy. Now I am de facto disallowed from editing on my own talk page. Something we usually don't even punish vandals and spammers with. Please try to step back from your own emotion a bit and try to calmly explain why I should not have the right to organize this particular diatribe by Mona (which she at first posted several times in several sections, which goes to show how much off-topic it really was) the way I please, at least on my own talk page. There have been too many fruitful, spirited or even heated discussions that were derailed by Mona. I just wanted to avoid that. Instead the end result was so much worse. If my emotions got the better of me or you misunderstood me, I am deeply sorry for any offense that may have been felt. But I only intended for a better readability of my talk page and to decrease the likelihood of Mona derailing a discussion by steering it towards BDS. Kind regards. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not when you do it to be a vindictive petty fuck. You asked why the leader of some minor populated country like israel deserved an article on its leader, Mona provided reasons why. You do nt get to decide what is and is not off topic based solely on a dislike of a user.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, on this point. I tried to edit Avenger's talk page, to express disagreement with his positions - basically backing up what Paravant and others have been saying. But since I am not a sysop, I can't edit it any more. Blacke (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I undid the protection, it was a "i'm serious about my threat" thing.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Also why exactly is Mona now a sysop while I am not? You do know that we two tend to disagree on some issues and the only reason she got to be sysop was because I had recently been promoted. I think it would be unfortunate for her to be able to "resolve" a dispute she has with me by "locking me out". I hope you understand...Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- you misunderstand, when i said that if you deserve to be a Sysop, the bar must be low enough mona must surely also qualify. If she abuses her powers, somebody will remove them from her, fear not. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- What about me constitutes "lowering the bar" in your mind? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- The bar was never very high. Sysopship is almost automatic for those who hang around long enough. (Been a sysop before, did a LANCB, reincarnated as Blacke.) Blacke (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Today and yesterdays tantrums are a wonderful example--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- So please give me a list of accepted opinion and points at which I have to give them up in order to be worthy of sysopship. Seriously. Just because I have genuine honest opinions and convictions and I stick to them does that mean that I am forever bared from the hammer while Mona is given free reign? <joke>Bah! Humbug! is all I have to say to that. And yes, part of me is stuck in the 19th century.</joke> Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- When I said almost everyone becomes a sysop eventually - the main exception are those who go around demanding it, making a big deal out of it, etc. (Because, to be honest, it's not a big deal.) Blacke (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Having disagreeing opinions and being a dick are two different things and you do yourself a disservice, as you have, by conflating the two. Mona has earned the hammer, Mona is trying to make better articles. I trust Mona to not do anything bad with the hammer, you, you i expect to misuse it if you decide to start edit wars over which english we use, give gibberish reasons for why we should go with your side and only give up when it becomes apparent you'll be in trouble if you don't stop. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- When I said almost everyone becomes a sysop eventually - the main exception are those who go around demanding it, making a big deal out of it, etc. (Because, to be honest, it's not a big deal.) Blacke (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- So please give me a list of accepted opinion and points at which I have to give them up in order to be worthy of sysopship. Seriously. Just because I have genuine honest opinions and convictions and I stick to them does that mean that I am forever bared from the hammer while Mona is given free reign? <joke>Bah! Humbug! is all I have to say to that. And yes, part of me is stuck in the 19th century.</joke> Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Today and yesterdays tantrums are a wonderful example--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- The bar was never very high. Sysopship is almost automatic for those who hang around long enough. (Been a sysop before, did a LANCB, reincarnated as Blacke.) Blacke (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- What about me constitutes "lowering the bar" in your mind? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- you misunderstand, when i said that if you deserve to be a Sysop, the bar must be low enough mona must surely also qualify. If she abuses her powers, somebody will remove them from her, fear not. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 02:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Also why exactly is Mona now a sysop while I am not? You do know that we two tend to disagree on some issues and the only reason she got to be sysop was because I had recently been promoted. I think it would be unfortunate for her to be able to "resolve" a dispute she has with me by "locking me out". I hope you understand...Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me just say one thing about spelling: The more ill-defined a spelling policy is, the more edit wars you will generate through it. Assigning spellings to geographical reasons is bound to be extremely problematic. Trust me, I talk with experience from another wiki I edit at. Ultimately, you will have a few obvious cases ("Labour Party" in Britain, "organized labor" in Wisconsin) and many iffy ones. How do you spell "center" in an article about Germany? After all, "Shoppingcenter" is a German word. Yet Germany is in the EU as is Britain. Stuff like this is bound to get dicey. And I am of the ~5% minority that cares about minutiae like spelling (unless it is thaeaeaeaen which just makes no fucking sense whatsoever) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- The policy was defined enough or the situation you caused with your reasoning that amounted to "I think American English is better".--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
What part of leaving my edits to my talk page alone don't you understand?[edit]
Seriously... It appears as if you want me to get angry at you in order to have "proof" of my uncivil behavior in order to be needlessly confrontational again. If you dislike my use of outdent, you know, that's like, your opinion, (wo)man Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand your desire to avoid using my actual gender, I don't hide it. And because you don't own your talk page, and I don't see the need to constantly change the level of conversation with outdents. It makes the conversation flow look bad. And i'm tired of you overusing rollbacks at all - You do it instead of talking and it's not helping your case--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is very uncivil to edit other people's contributions to talk pages. Unless of course you move them to their proper section or hide them, which is par of the course for spamming, racism and derailing the topic... Good day (I am too lazy to look up where you stated your gender) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you[edit]
... is something rarely said around here. So, thank you "Paravant" for your patience. There, niceness :) --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Avenger[edit]
I don't think he should stay not autopatrolled. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Let's wait a day or two. He is known to lie about what his edits do in his summaries (Bahrain's edit war) and He did thunder down from Sysop to being blocked for an hour for trolling in the space of a few days, so going right back to "trusted" seems premature. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm just going to disregard the red exclamation points as usual. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- When does anyone not do that anyway? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:07, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I have on occasion given more thought to looking into edits with the red exclamation mark Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I just arbitrarily look at difs when nothing important is going on. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Paravant, I agree with locking the Jeremy Corbyn talk page. It's spiraled well out of discussion of the guy himself. Btw, I take it the red exclamation mark means "this must be read and accepted!?" How do you make one of those?---Mona- (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Red bangs are for users who are not in the autopatrolled status, and are generated next to all contribs by said users, they mean "Look at this and make sure it isn't shit". In essence being autopatrolled means "you are trusted to not be insane" just like sysop means "you are trusted to not abuse" and tech means "you are trusted to not ruin davids day"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I pay more attention to the exclamation points simply because they're edits by non-trusted users and are more likely to be malicious or downright incompetent. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- (EC) Red exclamation marks are signals that say "hey, possible crazy alert, someone take a look". A sysop can then look and mark as patrolled, meaning "not crazy". If a person doesn't make anything crazy, they get autopatrolled and the marks no longer appear automatically. CorruptUser (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Basically, anyone who can be trusted to edit without extra attention is autopatrolled. If you lose that, it means you've lost the trust of one or more sysops (or above) which is not great of a position to be in. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Red bangs are for users who are not in the autopatrolled status, and are generated next to all contribs by said users, they mean "Look at this and make sure it isn't shit". In essence being autopatrolled means "you are trusted to not be insane" just like sysop means "you are trusted to not abuse" and tech means "you are trusted to not ruin davids day"--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Paravant, I agree with locking the Jeremy Corbyn talk page. It's spiraled well out of discussion of the guy himself. Btw, I take it the red exclamation mark means "this must be read and accepted!?" How do you make one of those?---Mona- (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I just arbitrarily look at difs when nothing important is going on. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have on occasion given more thought to looking into edits with the red exclamation mark Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- When does anyone not do that anyway? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:07, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Alright, I'm just going to disregard the red exclamation points as usual. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll go even further than autopatrolled, and say that Avenger should be given back his mop. Not today, but once he has had a little bit of space (a few days maybe) to calm down a little bit. (I say that, even though I've clashed with him a bit, because I don't think he's fundamentally a bad person, he's just allowed the heat of some disputes to get to him a bit.) Blacke (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think he;s fundamentally a bad person and should get autopatrolled back once he's proven he isn't going to go off again, but I don't feel like he's entirely, and this seems supported by -numerous- established users, grasped RW enough to be given a mop. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I just think if he is given another chance, it is an opportunity for him to prove himself, and if he fails it, it can easily be taken from him again. (Not that a mop means much - my old account had one, if I really wanted mop privileges I could just log in with my old account, but I really don't miss them, because other than the occasional joke block it doesn't make much of a difference.) Blacke (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- He can prove himself just as well without him, plus the many reservations people seemed to have about him and earning a mop. It takes a special kind of issue to have the candy of RW actually be given with trepidation. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I just think if he is given another chance, it is an opportunity for him to prove himself, and if he fails it, it can easily be taken from him again. (Not that a mop means much - my old account had one, if I really wanted mop privileges I could just log in with my old account, but I really don't miss them, because other than the occasional joke block it doesn't make much of a difference.) Blacke (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
New section[edit]
(edit conflict)Just one minor nitpick concerning the Corbyn article. It was doubted by one user that neither Hamas nor Hezbollah recognize Israel nor have they ever offered to do so. That's why I took said issue to the talk page instead of an edit war. It looks to me as if even Mona - who usually supports and defends Hamas - can't say anything of substance to disprove my assertion. Hence I would advise for it to be reinstated pending anybody actually proving the opposite. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, what references are you using? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- these two for starters. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- "who usually supports and defends Hamas" God, you are insufferable. Insisting on accuracy about groups you detest does not constitute supporting them. No, Blacke, I think Avenger should be autopatrolled for as long as Paravant feels it is advisable. He's caused incredible amounts of trouble here on multiple pages, and not just those pertaining to Israel. And today was outrageous, with the creation of that absurd alk Quds page all so he could inveigle some uninvolved user to embed the link in the Corbyn article and thereby circumvent his (deserved) inability to edit it himself. Avenger has repeatedly shown he can't play well with others.---Mona- (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Guess not. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant whether Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist. Who recognizes any state's right to exist? States do not have rights. I mean, is the former Soviet Union going to show up at the Hague suing Russia over some right to exist? Peoples, however, have rights to self-determination. Jewish and Palestinian peoples. The entity now called Israel can continue as long as it grants either a right of return or compensation to the refugees they created and their descendants. It also must grant full and equal citizenship rights to the disenfranchised Gazans and Arabs on the West bank, and a fair Constitution that does not embed Jewish supremacism.---Mona- (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- And will the Arab countries give reparations to the million Jews and their descendants booted from their countries too? And will they cease to exist if they do not? CorruptUser (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- All countries should cease to exist--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree wholeheartedly. Blacke (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- But that invariably raises the question: Which country should disappear first? I for one am in favor of all Islamic Republics and the Saudi Kingdom to disappear or at least cease their current form of government and become secular pluralistic democracies Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've reported you two to my local police department. CorruptUser (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I know I pissed off atleast one person in Singapore when i Drunkingly stated we should invade Singapore iraq 03' style and establish a Democracy there over the ruling dictatorship. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, there really haven't popped up enough dictatorships yet in the wake of the West coming in to 'civilize' nations. >.< 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:42, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- to be fair to drunk me, it's not exactly like Singapore is say, iraq, where democracy has little chance of working just by being imposed ontop of a overthrown out and out dictatorship. Singapores atleast a strong, well off country with lots of well off people that just happens to constitutionally support a virtual one party state with draconian laws. I really don't like Singapore--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- The amount of currently well-off people doesn't really matter much in my opinion. Once you destabilize a country, things can get ugly very quickly. And those well-off people will have their things taken or destroyed by not-well-off people or by greedy/powerhungry well-off people. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:15, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Eh, let the next guy handle it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's one of the dangers of only leading a country for a set term, actually. Sheer complacency about what'll soon be some other guy's problem. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:47, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I dislike Singapore's current government, but I'm confident that sooner or later (it might take 20 or 30 years), it will be voted out of office. And I think the people of Singapore will be much better off doing that on their own terms and at their own time than having it imposed on them by well-meaning outsiders. The second last election, the ruling party went backwards a fair bit, but still hung on to a clear majority. The election they just had, everyone expected them to go further backward (yet still win), but they surprised observers by improving their position. But I don't believe that was due to vote fraud or anything of the sort, just genuinely due to the political winds of the electorate. I expect PAP will go backwards again in the future. Now, no doubt they have gerrymandered the system somewhat to make it harder for the opposition, but I don't think they've gerrymandered it so badly that if a majority of Singapore voters genuinely wanted to get rid of them, they couldn't - and I'm confident that day will come, eventually. Blacke (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, pity. Looks like the party stays in power for now. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:16, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Ah, pity. Looks like the party stays in power
- I dislike Singapore's current government, but I'm confident that sooner or later (it might take 20 or 30 years), it will be voted out of office. And I think the people of Singapore will be much better off doing that on their own terms and at their own time than having it imposed on them by well-meaning outsiders. The second last election, the ruling party went backwards a fair bit, but still hung on to a clear majority. The election they just had, everyone expected them to go further backward (yet still win), but they surprised observers by improving their position. But I don't believe that was due to vote fraud or anything of the sort, just genuinely due to the political winds of the electorate. I expect PAP will go backwards again in the future. Now, no doubt they have gerrymandered the system somewhat to make it harder for the opposition, but I don't think they've gerrymandered it so badly that if a majority of Singapore voters genuinely wanted to get rid of them, they couldn't - and I'm confident that day will come, eventually. Blacke (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's one of the dangers of only leading a country for a set term, actually. Sheer complacency about what'll soon be some other guy's problem. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:47, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Eh, let the next guy handle it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 05:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- The amount of currently well-off people doesn't really matter much in my opinion. Once you destabilize a country, things can get ugly very quickly. And those well-off people will have their things taken or destroyed by not-well-off people or by greedy/powerhungry well-off people. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:15, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- to be fair to drunk me, it's not exactly like Singapore is say, iraq, where democracy has little chance of working just by being imposed ontop of a overthrown out and out dictatorship. Singapores atleast a strong, well off country with lots of well off people that just happens to constitutionally support a virtual one party state with draconian laws. I really don't like Singapore--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, there really haven't popped up enough dictatorships yet in the wake of the West coming in to 'civilize' nations. >.< 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:42, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- I know I pissed off atleast one person in Singapore when i Drunkingly stated we should invade Singapore iraq 03' style and establish a Democracy there over the ruling dictatorship. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree wholeheartedly. Blacke (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- All countries should cease to exist--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- And will the Arab countries give reparations to the million Jews and their descendants booted from their countries too? And will they cease to exist if they do not? CorruptUser (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant whether Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist. Who recognizes any state's right to exist? States do not have rights. I mean, is the former Soviet Union going to show up at the Hague suing Russia over some right to exist? Peoples, however, have rights to self-determination. Jewish and Palestinian peoples. The entity now called Israel can continue as long as it grants either a right of return or compensation to the refugees they created and their descendants. It also must grant full and equal citizenship rights to the disenfranchised Gazans and Arabs on the West bank, and a fair Constitution that does not embed Jewish supremacism.---Mona- (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Guess not. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- "who usually supports and defends Hamas" God, you are insufferable. Insisting on accuracy about groups you detest does not constitute supporting them. No, Blacke, I think Avenger should be autopatrolled for as long as Paravant feels it is advisable. He's caused incredible amounts of trouble here on multiple pages, and not just those pertaining to Israel. And today was outrageous, with the creation of that absurd alk Quds page all so he could inveigle some uninvolved user to embed the link in the Corbyn article and thereby circumvent his (deserved) inability to edit it himself. Avenger has repeatedly shown he can't play well with others.---Mona- (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- these two for starters. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Furthermore on Hezbollah, we have to consider this and this. There might be some indication that there is some Antisemitism to the anti-Zionism with Hezbollah, but that may just be my hunch. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Why don't you write an essay, as you once suggested Mona should? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Furthermore on Hezbollah, we have to consider this and this. There might be some indication that there is some Antisemitism to the anti-Zionism with Hezbollah, but that may just be my hunch. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
A question to all those seriously interested in constructively arguing the fact of whether Hezbollah or Hamas recognize Israel and not some tangents: Do you support or oppose my adding the sentence that Hamas and Hezbollah don't recognize the right of Israel to exist with said references (or different references or more or less references) ? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Millions of Jews were not expelled from Muslim countries. There were only abut a million Jews in Arab countries in 1945. But yes, I take the same position Israel does, that those who lost their property to expulsion should be compensated.---Mona- (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Go ahead, Avenger, but I will also add a reference explaining why it is irrelevant to demand that either organization "recognize the right of Israel to exist."---Mona- (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your tangent will be discussed in its place in due time. I shall await for the morrow to find whether the consensus is strong enough. Seeing that "even" Mona agrees, I have little doubt it will eventually form. Good night and good luck. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure thing. You just mutter "tangent, tangent, tangent" soothingly to yourself, over and over. Tomorrow I'm working on the Zionism draft. I won't get diverted with your nonsense. Today I felt doing so actually worked to my benefit (it certainty did, with a great deal of help from you). But not tomorrow. Not for more than a few minutes. I can undo andy further of your tendentious silliness on another day.---Mona- (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd go a step beyond Mona, and say I'd 100% support a return of Jewish refugees to the Arab states from which they were expelled, and I think that would do the Middle East a lot of good. Jewish immigration to the Arab states should be encouraged, because I think in the long run it would be good for all parties involved. It's so much harder to hate people when you live next door to them. I think the ethnic cleansing of the Middle East (which has been going on since 1948 and is continuing to the present) is a large part of the cause of so much conflict there today. (This isn't just the fault of Zionism and Arab/Muslim anti-Jewish sentiment, although both of those share some of the blame; Sunni-Shia conflicts, and Salafi/Wahabi/Islamist intolerance, share much of the blame as well.) Blacke (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure thing. You just mutter "tangent, tangent, tangent" soothingly to yourself, over and over. Tomorrow I'm working on the Zionism draft. I won't get diverted with your nonsense. Today I felt doing so actually worked to my benefit (it certainty did, with a great deal of help from you). But not tomorrow. Not for more than a few minutes. I can undo andy further of your tendentious silliness on another day.---Mona- (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your tangent will be discussed in its place in due time. I shall await for the morrow to find whether the consensus is strong enough. Seeing that "even" Mona agrees, I have little doubt it will eventually form. Good night and good luck. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Go ahead, Avenger, but I will also add a reference explaining why it is irrelevant to demand that either organization "recognize the right of Israel to exist."---Mona- (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Millions of Jews were not expelled from Muslim countries. There were only abut a million Jews in Arab countries in 1945. But yes, I take the same position Israel does, that those who lost their property to expulsion should be compensated.---Mona- (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Mona's tangent[edit]
Mona is currently edit warring to have a tangent inserted (citing an opinion piece in "electronic Intifada" no less) that argues that recognition of Israel does not matter. I do think all sane people will agree that no Israeli government will accept the abolishment of Israel. Hence the stance of Hamas and Hezbollah on Israel's right to exist is relevant and detrimental to the peace process. Mona's editorial is not needed on that. Thank you for your kind attention. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- False dilemma much? The Koreas and the Chinas don't acknowledge each other's claim as valid, but things are mostly peaceful between them. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:40, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
- Please have a look at Hamas' charter. Just use the search function to search for "rocks and trees" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- the things you people do when I'm at work I swear. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry. It was not my intention. I just consider a tangent based on an op-ed piece of "electronic Intifada" a bad thing to insert into an article we just had a consensus on... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's not an op-ed piece (you are habitually dishonest in your claims, including what you claim about sources). It's an analysis of relevant international law by experts in the field, as you well know. In any event, the whole shtick you wanted added -- in which I had inserted this source you unreasonably hate -- has been removed by Weaseloid which I totally support. And now, preparing dinner and then back to Zionism draft.---Mona- (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry. It was not my intention. I just consider a tangent based on an op-ed piece of "electronic Intifada" a bad thing to insert into an article we just had a consensus on... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- the things you people do when I'm at work I swear. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please have a look at Hamas' charter. Just use the search function to search for "rocks and trees" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
You asserting that an article that says "Recognizing Israel should not matter" is not an op-ed piece does not magically make it a factual article. You have furthermore not addressed the serious concerns with your source. After all, we don't go around quoting "white people news" or "Christianity daily" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Avenger writes: "Blah, blah, derp, derp, ad nasusem, burp." pffft---Mona- (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think Mona's words here speak for themselves. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks[edit]
Thank you for undoing my mistake. MarmotHead (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which mistake? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sysopping you (A of BoN). Yes, you contribute good stuff, but you go on occasional edit-warring binges. When that happens, the only way to stop it is for articles to be accessible only to moderators. With you unsysopped, the binges can be stopped while the remaining sysops can still edit. Practically speaking, the biz of RW isn't clogged up as much with you in the non-sysop ranks. MarmotHead (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The day will come when someone says "Who the fuck made Mona sysop?" And the day will come that her sysop-ship will be regretted. Mark my words. Verily I say thee. And thee. And all other thees thous and thys... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Right after I saw Paravant having made Mona a sysop, I asked him, what he did drink.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- That day may come, but it hasn't and has no bearing on you being made a sysop a mistake when it happened. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Right after I saw Paravant having made Mona a sysop, I asked him, what he did drink.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- The day will come when someone says "Who the fuck made Mona sysop?" And the day will come that her sysop-ship will be regretted. Mark my words. Verily I say thee. And thee. And all other thees thous and thys... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sysopping you (A of BoN). Yes, you contribute good stuff, but you go on occasional edit-warring binges. When that happens, the only way to stop it is for articles to be accessible only to moderators. With you unsysopped, the binges can be stopped while the remaining sysops can still edit. Practically speaking, the biz of RW isn't clogged up as much with you in the non-sysop ranks. MarmotHead (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
May Avenger do that?[edit]
I made a perfectly reasonable comment on his talk page in response to Sorte Slyngel, and he collapsed it beyond retrieving. Is that allowed? I reposted it -- I worked very hard researching that and it pissed me off a whole lot. I thought we couldn't mess with content even on our talk pages? Obviously I'm too partisan to take action against him, but I'd ask that others consider doing so.---Mona- (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, collapsing a giant wall of text is completely kosher, double-posting ain't.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- See the user talk of Sorte Slyngel for reference. Or several other talk pages Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Long posts are sometimes collapsed to keep the page from being overly bloated for people who may view it for other sections, but to do so because of a dislike of a user is not ok.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- It wasn't THAT long, and was in direct response to a discussion about ME and my views. I was defending my views. May he do that? Consider this a learning experience, and I will act on other talk pages as you tell me is allowed here.---Mona- (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Mona just to be clear. Paravant does not own this here wiki. Some of his moves may indeed not be consensus. So you should get a second opinion before relying on him as your only source. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe she thinks, that having a mod on her side hostile to you is enough.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, just like her friends over at BDS thought having the Reykjavik city council on their side is enough. Well, they don't any more. Now they have lost. Forever. After all, how can you win without the Reykjavik city council? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- You say a lot of words, and yet they mean so little. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- EC)EC) Don't think there's anything actually agin hiding stuff - it's still there & accessible after all - but I'd just archive it if it was summat I didn't want on my talk page. Scream!! (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- BTW The mod is not on his own. Scream!! (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Putting comments or threads in collapse boxes is stupid but sadly there are several editors who insist on doing it. Usually they'll also edit war over it if you try to remove the collapse box again. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nevermind. I let my brief flare of temper get the better of me. I have better things to do here than pay attention to Avenger's antics. The data in my comment has been collected and drafted, and I will have a much better use for it here eventually. So, forgive my little fit here and to the extent possible just ignore Avenger.---Mona- (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Putting comments or threads in collapse boxes is stupid but sadly there are several editors who insist on doing it. Usually they'll also edit war over it if you try to remove the collapse box again. Wèàšèìòìď
- BTW The mod is not on his own. Scream!! (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- EC)EC) Don't think there's anything actually agin hiding stuff - it's still there & accessible after all - but I'd just archive it if it was summat I didn't want on my talk page. Scream!! (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- You say a lot of words, and yet they mean so little. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, just like her friends over at BDS thought having the Reykjavik city council on their side is enough. Well, they don't any more. Now they have lost. Forever. After all, how can you win without the Reykjavik city council? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe she thinks, that having a mod on her side hostile to you is enough.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Mona just to be clear. Paravant does not own this here wiki. Some of his moves may indeed not be consensus. So you should get a second opinion before relying on him as your only source. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- See the user talk of Sorte Slyngel for reference. Or several other talk pages Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
This is not the first time Mona has claimed to cease engaging me in any sort of conversation. I just wanted this to be on the record. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- He is right, saying you won't be wasting your time on him anymore loses much of its dramatic meaning when you do it multiple times.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I've been careful to not use the word "always" or "never." (I almost (sic) never employ absolutes.) What I've said is that I'm not going to "substantively" engage him any longer, unless I sense that others are taking his points seriously (that doesn't seem terribly dramatic). For example, you just believed it when Avenger said I had claimed to be ceasing to engage him." I have not ever (sic) stated that position. But I declined to address him here to correct him and say so, but I am now telling it to you---Mona- (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Smoothtalking lawyer bastard...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- However you wish to characterize it, I say what I mean and generally use words with precision. This was my pre-lawyer habit as well. If that constitutes "smooth-talking" the world would benefit from more of it.---Mona- (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- To quote a quite famous lawyer "words no longer have meaning". And on a somewhat related not... Mona does not employ words with precision. Half of the time people who speak English as a second language have a better command of it thaen she does. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- However you wish to characterize it, I say what I mean and generally use words with precision. This was my pre-lawyer habit as well. If that constitutes "smooth-talking" the world would benefit from more of it.---Mona- (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Smoothtalking lawyer bastard...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I've been careful to not use the word "always" or "never." (I almost (sic) never employ absolutes.) What I've said is that I'm not going to "substantively" engage him any longer, unless I sense that others are taking his points seriously (that doesn't seem terribly dramatic). For example, you just believed it when Avenger said I had claimed to be ceasing to engage him." I have not ever (sic) stated that position. But I declined to address him here to correct him and say so, but I am now telling it to you---Mona- (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Guidelines[edit]
Weaseloid's addition has been opposed by Avenger (of course) and Arisboch. You said that it was accepted due to inaction, this is no longer the case. I remember Arisboch telling me he remembered you saying it was too late, is this true? If so, that's preposterous. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Propose a vote on the issue then.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- How would I do so, that sounds like a good idea? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Go to the community guidelines talk page or the Bar and write it up. I wouldn't, but that's because I don't see why we need to be beholden to one user wanting to do something when the wiki has thus far said no.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Does it count as a policy vote, btw? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Its a change to the guidelines of the wiki, so mostly.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- So, the voters must be eligible? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- If they aren't, they really should be given that changes to our site rules and guidelines really shouldn't be open to people who aren't.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- What does that mean? Does it mean that Paravant can disenfranchise me? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, it means you were never enfranchised in the first place. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Paravant, what do you mean in your penultimate post? That was incomprehensible, your English is getting quite bad. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, it means you were never enfranchised in the first place. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- What does that mean? Does it mean that Paravant can disenfranchise me? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- If they aren't, they really should be given that changes to our site rules and guidelines really shouldn't be open to people who aren't.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- So, the voters must be eligible? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Its a change to the guidelines of the wiki, so mostly.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Does it count as a policy vote, btw? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Go to the community guidelines talk page or the Bar and write it up. I wouldn't, but that's because I don't see why we need to be beholden to one user wanting to do something when the wiki has thus far said no.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- How would I do so, that sounds like a good idea? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Well I was sysop before Paravant decided to go on a rampage... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your sysopry is irrelevant to being Eligible, of which you do not meet the minimum requirements for. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Would you please explain the criteria? Otherwise I will have to throw around calls for a boycott and accusations of apartheid... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Paravant, are YOU eligible? Is Alec? Can't find either on the registration. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm number 15 on the list. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I wasn't looking for that. Can I strike those who aren't eligible? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which list? Care to link? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- See your talk. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Assuming they actually are and are not illegible solely because we maintain an obscure list. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Umm, could you please clarify that? BTW, I am number 12 on that list.
Alec Sanderson (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Paravant, are unlisted people not illegible? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't discount unlisted people right away who are otherwise eligible solely because they are not on an obscure list we don't link to, no. If, when asked to sign up, they say no, then yes, they are ineligible. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Alright. 12 is User:Sprocket J Cogswell, is there something I'm not aware of? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't discount unlisted people right away who are otherwise eligible solely because they are not on an obscure list we don't link to, no. If, when asked to sign up, they say no, then yes, they are ineligible. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Paravant, are unlisted people not illegible? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Umm, could you please clarify that? BTW, I am number 12 on that list.
- Assuming they actually are and are not illegible solely because we maintain an obscure list. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- See your talk. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which list? Care to link? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I wasn't looking for that. Can I strike those who aren't eligible? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm number 15 on the list. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Paravant, are YOU eligible? Is Alec? Can't find either on the registration. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Would you please explain the criteria? Otherwise I will have to throw around calls for a boycott and accusations of apartheid... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Zionism draft[edit]
It took a few days longer than the few days I had said, but I have put a collapsed version of the unfinished draft at the Zionism talk page and asked for consideration and feedback, with an eye toward adoption in whole or part. Thanks for your guidance on the mechanics of this effort.---Mona- (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Are you seriously believing that your hatchet piece will replace our curent coverage of this off-mission subject? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please take it to the Zionism talk page.---Mona- (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Zionism? Off mission? Ahahaha. Fuck off my talk page.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please explain exactly which part of our mission statement covers our discussion of Zionism... And as it is apparently okay for Mona to go around asking other people to support her ridiculousness, I want an apology from you for blocking me for alerting people as to discussions that might interest them on their talk pages. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I owe you no apologies. You invited v users with no stake cin the discussion, she atleast stuck to involved users. Ill punish her When I get home--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't do that. I alerted the other authors that I had offered the draft, and also told Paravant who had asked me to post it earlier, but I had declined. I was merely paying him a courtesy and thanking him for shepherding the project on the two different pages (without taking sides). Not "asking for support."---Mona- (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- I owe you no apologies. You invited v users with no stake cin the discussion, she atleast stuck to involved users. Ill punish her When I get home--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please explain exactly which part of our mission statement covers our discussion of Zionism... And as it is apparently okay for Mona to go around asking other people to support her ridiculousness, I want an apology from you for blocking me for alerting people as to discussions that might interest them on their talk pages. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Zionism? Off mission? Ahahaha. Fuck off my talk page.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please take it to the Zionism talk page.---Mona- (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)