User talk:Rosicrucian

I do not remove personal attacks directed at me from this page. If you spot any, please do not remove them, as they speak more against the attacker than against me.

YaR GnitS Vandalism

SORRY

DRV

Would you please look at my proposal re 911tRtT? Thanks,  Xiutwel (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfD comments

You may want to consider revising your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). Just a suggestion. Kafziel ^Talk 15:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I got a little chuckle out of it. But I was worried that the furor that was starting up might sidetrack the deletion debate. So thanks for your revision. Take care! Kafziel ^Talk 15:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi, I see you are keeping an eye on and keeping tidy the Andy Stephenson AfD, do you want to wikify my comments for all the SPA's I identified earlier, I didn't think about it back then. If not I'll quickly go in a do them. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 18:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 2

Please note: In general, if you have material that you do not wish for others to edit, or that is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia, it should be placed on a personal web site. User Pages I intend to be VERY active on the PUBLIC 911TMCruft page. NBGPWS 04:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abysmal ooze AfD

Hi. I'm slightly intrigued by your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abysmal ooze about "be mindful of WP:SNOW". Personally, I find WP:SNOW one of Wikipedia's less helpful pages, so I was wondering if you could give me a slightly fuller explanation of what you mean by that. Cheers --Pak21 08:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were prodded. It was contested by I-think-you-can-guess-who-without-looking-at-the-diff. Cheers --Pak21 14:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Comments to JamesMLane re: Walter Andrew Stephenson

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. BenBurch 01:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Guild POV-pushers trying to get original article deleted to protect their POV Fork

Striver's POV-pushing cohort User:Burgas00 has, in a fit of his POV-pushing zeal, nominated Beit_Hanoun_November_2006_incident for deletion here. The cowardly bad faith POV-pusher wouldn't even sign his own name to the deletion request either. I thought you should be warned of this. RunedChozo 22:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern

But Striver and his friends' behavior has been completely beyond the pale. I cannot just sit idly by and pretend that they are something they are not, e.g. honest and well-meaning contributors. RunedChozo 21:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Itaqallah and friends blatantly lying

See here please:

I have caught Itaqallah blatantly lying in his edit summaries. I see no reason to assume he or his "Muslim Guild" friends are acting in good faith any more. RunedChozo 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Itaqallah has now had an admin tool lock the page in bad faith on his behalf. This is beyond insulting behavior and so far beyond good faith it is not even funny, and FayssalF's involvement would appear to be just another Muslim Guild member. RunedChozo 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Rosicrucian, I thank you for all your positive contributions to Wikipedia talk:911 POV disputes. They are valuable to me. I intend to pick up Wikipedia after January 8. Got any suggestions on how to proceed with this? Some thoughts I have:

compare proposed interpretations with current adopted policy
try and reach consensus on:
- interpretations?
- new guidelines?
- amendments to existing guidelines?

What would be a good title? 911-related? controversial-articles-related?  Xiutwel (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to Jamie Spaniolo:

Your recent edit to Jamie Spaniolo (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, forum, or other such free-hosting website links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk Page

I thank you for your concern as to my deleting of warnings on my talk page. I feel that I must attest to say that the one vandalism was not done by me, but by someone else using this computer. I have since talked to this relative and they have not proceeded to cause any harm to this free encylopedia. I, myself, do use it as a tool and try to fix any blatent vandalism I come across. I thank you again for taking time to concern yourself a little with this issue. May I also inquire as to why you were quisitive about myself? 67.162.76.82 04:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for explaining this. Even after a year are the warnings still relevant to this IP? I don't register because I don't edit enough on Wikipedia. It just feels like there is no trust even when you weren't the person. You still didn't answer my question as to why you were inquisitive about myself.67.162.76.82 05:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ICP's Gold/Plat Counts

Thanks for reverting the ICP gold/plat counts. I'm glad someone else besides me gives a shit about that being correct. Juggaleaux 02:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]