User talk:Davenbelle: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:41, 26 November 2005 editTrey Stone (talk \| contribs)5,756 edits →Iconothingy ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:10, 26 November 2005 edit undoDavenbelle (talk \| contribs)3,206 edits →Arb appeal?Next edit →
Line 27:		Line 27:

	I have serious disagreements with your political philosophy (from what I can tell) but I've recognized that a lotta my past arguments were just based on my own political sympathies and I'm willing to just work with the facts, no ideological bias involved. ] 04:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)		I have serious disagreements with your political philosophy (from what I can tell) but I've recognized that a lotta my past arguments were just based on my own political sympathies and I'm willing to just work with the facts, no ideological bias involved. ] 04:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

			: I'm not sure just what an arbitration appeal involves. I would assume that you file an ] and see if they accept. The arbitration that we had some months ago was requested by you, not me — although I supported its acceptance. I am fine with the resolution reached in the case and feel that your ban from political articles serves[REDACTED] well, and I will not support lifting it. You've indicated that you wish to work with just the facts and leave biases out of your editing and I think that's a good sign. I believe that Fred said something about your demonstrating these habits in non-political articles before considering allowing you to edit political articles again, and you should probably do so before requesting an appeal. — ] 07:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:10, 26 November 2005

User:Davenbelle/sidebar

Comment

There is a Cabal.

Personal Attack on User:Iconoclast

Hello, you recently yipped and yapped about me breaking the rules, but I notice that your latest update you edited in "a proud faggot nutsack" within my userpage. I find this intolerable, bigoted, and downright hateful. Perhaps homosexual African-Americans elecit anger in you? You should visit www.adl.org . --Iconoclast 07:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry, I was looking at a previous edit. My apologies! I am terribly, terribly sorry, and very embarassed. I hope to make amends with you.--Iconoclast 07:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No offense taken. Please see my other post on your talk page. — Davenbelle 03:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Iconothingy

No, I didn't know, thanks. I am not impressed (also, I don't live anywhere near Scandinavia). Like he says, "We know what is true and what is false now." Yes, we do. Maybe I'll just add myself to Category:Rouge admins now. R adiant!_>|< 12:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You're most welcome. — Davenbelle 03:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Arb appeal?

Hey man, long time no edit war. Seriously though. I don't know how much you're contributing now (I'm not so much) but if I recall right you got some kind of punishment along with me when the Arb case ended. Me and 172 ended our hostilities a while back and I'm willing to do the same with you, work with you if we're editting the same articles. I'd like to appeal the case so that both our bans could get lifted but since you were the one who brought it I figure I gotta ask you.

I have serious disagreements with your political philosophy (from what I can tell) but I've recognized that a lotta my past arguments were just based on my own political sympathies and I'm willing to just work with the facts, no ideological bias involved. Dr. Trey 04:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure just what an arbitration appeal involves. I would assume that you file an WP:RFAR and see if they accept. The arbitration that we had some months ago was requested by you, not me — although I supported its acceptance. I am fine with the resolution reached in the case and feel that your ban from political articles serves[REDACTED] well, and I will not support lifting it. You've indicated that you wish to work with just the facts and leave biases out of your editing and I think that's a good sign. I believe that Fred said something about your demonstrating these habits in non-political articles before considering allowing you to edit political articles again, and you should probably do so before requesting an appeal. — Davenbelle 07:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)