User talk:Davenbelle

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. Radiant!_>|< 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 wikipedia 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) what is it with people and this idea that i need a year before i can start editting again? like i've got a crack addiction or something. i've already made several significant edits to articles crammed with unsourced info and bias. i apologize for the edit wars (in that my edits were probably a little overboard and i shoulda been less aggressive) but i think the "verdict" reached was a little out there. non-political articles don't involve a lotta arguments so what is that gonna prove? well i'll try to work with 172 on this since he's the only guy who seems to realize people don't need a year ban for being impolite even after they cleaned up their act for 3 months. thanks anyway though Dr. Trey 07:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC) You're free to edit non-political/non-US Foreign Policy articles. In your first post above you said that you're contributing "not so much" since our ArbCom case. If you would like to build skill working with other editors on controversial articles, you could try religious articles, or sexual subject such as clitoris or Autofellatio. — Davenbelle 05:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC) A real concern Are you having a go at CoolCat with that image of a kitten on your main page? I hope I don't have to remind you of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC) No, that is a real kitten and he's really gone missing. — Davenbelle 02:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC) OK. But no more baiting CoolCat - I saw your template, and I'm not impressed. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC) Template? One of the boxes? Impressed with User:Cool Cat's latest fit of pique? [1] [2] [3]? Or how about his POV on Ilısu Dam? — Davenbelle 02:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC) NB: I will be off-wiki for the rest of the week. — Davenbelle 02:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC) There is a cabal Hello, I am interested in hearing more about and joint investigating your "There is a cabal" theory, thx. zen master T 20:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC) I didn't characterize it as a theory. — Davenbelle 04:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Blocked as per the arbcom decision It is of my opinion that you have been further hounding Cool Cat. You've come to AfD's he's been on and voted opposite him (after placing that he did that to you in your evidence against him), you've basically been wikistalking him, and you haven't stepped back (whereas Fadix, and to some extent Karl Meier have). You've been blocked for 24 hours. I'd like to remind you that wiki has millions of pages, Cool Cat isn't on all of them. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 09:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC) Replied at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Davenbelle blocked — Davenbelle 03:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Kurdistan Workers Party It sure looks like Cool Cat is up to his old PoV pushing, personal attacks and harrasment again. I also made a comment about the problem here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat,_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/mentorship#Continued_harrasment_by_Cool_Cat -- Karl Meier 20:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)