SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) →Your recent edit summary: blocked indef |
|||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
I saw one of your recent edit summaries on Recent Changes in which you advise an editor to "Please consider suicide, kthx". That particular comment is inappropriate on so many levels. Any editor on Wikipedia should know better. [[User:Taroaldo|Taroaldo]] ([[User talk:Taroaldo|talk]]) 18:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
I saw one of your recent edit summaries on Recent Changes in which you advise an editor to "Please consider suicide, kthx". That particular comment is inappropriate on so many levels. Any editor on Wikipedia should know better. [[User:Taroaldo|Taroaldo]] ([[User talk:Taroaldo|talk]]) 18:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Blocked indef. When you understand why, come back and request unblocking. --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 19:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
:Blocked indef. When you understand why, come back and request unblocking. --[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 19:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
We live on a world with nearly 7 billion people, resource scarcity and access to basic necessity are serious issues which the majority of those people face. I think that we as individual members of humanity owe it to ourselves and our brethren to now and again contemplate on our net utility and indeed consider if our greatest contribution wouldn't be the ultimate one. Going on past contributions and approach of the editor in question I am personally convinced that a detached analysis would favor such an outcome. That said, those same behavioral artifacts also point to the inability of the editor to act in such a selfless manner, so your concerns - while no doubt thought to arise from the best of intentions, are for naught. [[User:Unomi|Unomi]] ([[User talk:Unomi#top|talk]]) 19:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:35, 12 August 2010
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
FYI
You may be interested: latest tactic. TickleMeister (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC).
- Today's insight: what is "lobby" spelled backwards? Ybbol. Make it readable. Y
bobol. It figures! TickleMeister (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Mediation: Israel and the Apartheid analogy
Just an FYI, we are running a straw poll on title choices on the mediation page - see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#Straw_poll_on_titles. If you pitch in a vote or three, we can move this along. --Ludwigs2 06:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Warning
Stop editing my talk page messages. If you feel that I inappropriately canvassed, follow the steps outlined at our policy: Wikipedia:CANVAS#How_to_respond_to_inappropriate_canvassing. Thanks, Pantherskin (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a policy. Why don't you just rewrite the message and post at the I-P collaboration page instead ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib
The removal was done as a compromise for DYK promotion. Please see the discussion at Mbz's talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sometimes the compromise between a good version and a bad version is a bad version, are you seriously defending removing the quote, which nicely mirrors the quote of the section above, due to her not being able to retain the 'better than blowing up children in busses'? Unomi (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I started a request for comment on Fox News's reliability at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. Thank you. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Discussion on closure of Israel and Aparthied mediation
Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. --Ludwigs2 17:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edit summary
I saw one of your recent edit summaries on Recent Changes in which you advise an editor to "Please consider suicide, kthx". That particular comment is inappropriate on so many levels. Any editor on Wikipedia should know better. Taroaldo (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked indef. When you understand why, come back and request unblocking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
We live on a world with nearly 7 billion people, resource scarcity and access to basic necessity are serious issues which the majority of those people face. I think that we as individual members of humanity owe it to ourselves and our brethren to now and again contemplate on our net utility and indeed consider if our greatest contribution wouldn't be the ultimate one. Going on past contributions and approach of the editor in question I am personally convinced that a detached analysis would favor such an outcome. That said, those same behavioral artifacts also point to the inability of the editor to act in such a selfless manner, so your concerns - while no doubt thought to arise from the best of intentions, are for naught. Unomi (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)