User talk:WholemealBaphomet

WholemealBaphomet (talk · contribs · block log)

Hi

Hi WholemealBaphomet, If you want to know what you did before being cloned look here. User talk:Baphomet..--WholemealBaphomet 23:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have forgotten your carnation, could you email me at the address attached to this username? If you don't like flowers, sorry for bothering you. Grace Note 06:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of honesty on WikiPedia is driven by a lack of inteligence or consideration of anything said. A conversation with the head man reveals. that sticking to the rules is not enough, you've got to think the rules are great.

Lack of Honesty at Wikipedia

Looks like dishonest Dave has got another small victory. Damn he's good only several months late. Seconds of delya added to my work.

Irate Irate___ Which bit is the personal abuse?
Irate___ When Thersa block me for trying to set up an RFC against her. Yes I was behaving realy badly.
Irate___ SNow spinner for instance has blocked me several times just for the hell of it, I have told him I will not talk to him, I'm being no more antisocial than if Id left the msg there and ignored it, like what happens to my msgs.
jwales I do not agree at all that he blocked you just for the hell of it.
jwales Remember, everything is recorded. It's easy to look it up.
jwales In each case you deserved it.
jwales Your filing of frivolous RfC's is one of your worst traits.
Irate____ He blocked me as soon as I edited after my ban. I know everything is recorded, that's why I'm not lying. The RFC's seem to be the most basic form of getting somone impartial involved how else should I have proceded?
jwales Show me a link
Irate____ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irate&oldid=19020236
Irate____ the heads up bit.
jwales Good let's analyze this.
jwales Obviously you did lie to me.
Irate____ In what way
jwales You told me that he banned you just for the hell of it.
jwales I closed the window so I don't have the exact quote.
jwales But look what he wrote: he gave a reason
jwales a clearly valid reason
jwales now, if he made a mistake, that's one thing
jwales but it isn't injustice
Irate____ He showed absolutley no "good faith"
jwales No, I think he did.
Irate____ He took the first oppurtunity.
jwales Yes.
jwales I think that's the right approach.
jwales You have no respect for the rules.
jwales So you have to be treated firmly.
jwales If you were a thoughtful and kind person, instead of a jerk all the time, it would be different.
Irate____ I stay within them as practiced. Respect for them in the sense U mean is not required.
Irate____ Are you going to recomend your sero tolerance be practiced by everyone?
jwales Respect for the in the sense that I mean *is* required.
jwales It is required of you.
jwales Because you have been a pain in the neck for so long.
jwales And I'm fully prepared to lose you permanently as a contributor.
jwales So you face a choice: reform or leave.
jwales Tell me now which you choose.
Irate____ I will abide by the rules but I will not respect them.
jwales then you are now permanently banned from wikipedia
jwales goodbye
Irate____ do you under stand what abide actually means. I know I can't spell but atleast I now what words I.m using mean.
jwales doesn't matter
jwales I get the picture
jwales you won't change your attitude
jwales you'll continue flaming people as much as you can get away with under your twisted interpretations of th rules
jwales you have no intention to adhere to a higher standard of behavior
jwales so, you're gone
jwales sorry
Irate____ I'll stick to the riles but I won;t like them is not enough for you?
jwales this is a private community
jwales not at all
jwales not even close

--WholemealBaphomet 14:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposal

Proposed deletion of Crossing on the stairs

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Crossing on the stairs, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]