 | This user may have left Wikipedia. VeryVerily has not edited Wikipedia since February 2006. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
- Please add new messages at the bottom.
- I reserve the right to post replies on this page instead of your user talk page, although I often don't.
/archive /Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies
Thanks for reverting my user page! Angela 09:05, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
I, for one, appreciate your effort on the attacks on humanitarian workers page!2toise 09:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks! :) VV 20:21, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Bravo verily, Verily Verily, for your very worthwhile IMHO recent addition to the Genocide page. Puts a lot of controversies in context. TonyClarke 09:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Lodar, VeryVerily. Good suggestion on not yanking paragraphs out of an already contentious article without first going to the Talk page. By the way, I had already seen that the passage had been deleted, so I could figure out what your comment meant. Other people may be puzzled, however. Good luck, and keep on trying to talk sense to people. P0M
Regarding your recent edit to Bush family conspiracy theory: Oh, yeah, sure, go and bring evidence into it. What a spoilsport! ;-) -- Cyan 05:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Peak 05:22, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC): Thanks for your responses at User_talk:Peak#Multi-regional hypothesis. In an attempt to avoid confusion, I will post some responses there rather than here, but in the meantime, I'd just like to say that I appreciate the general tone of your response, and hope that we can resolve any remaining points of misunderstanding amicably. Peak
Thanks, I did not dare doing that with the GWB National Guard accusations.
Thanks for the terror word at March 11, ...Madrid. I was getting very angry. Pfortuny 08:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- KR
User:Hanpuk is busy trying to whitewash the Khmer Rouge article based on topics we have went over there and other places before. I've run out of reverts for the day. --mav 06:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
your thoughts might be usefull over at Talk:Khmer Rouge PMA 22:47, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. I didn't even notice until just now, when I checked the history. Meelar 06:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- "Rigged"
I like your latest wording best. I hope Meelar agrees. Cecropia 01:56, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
VV, I'm in my own little drama right now and I'd rather not step into the middle of another one. Sorry. RickK
- lousy English
I would like to express our (collective) great gratitude to all Wikipedians who correct grammatical errors and unidiomatic expressions from pages where ESL-wikipedians have put their mark on the prose. Some foreigners' English is worse than others' — this is not politically correct to state, but I do it anyways — and that of Finns belong to the worst. Thank you! Thank you very much!
If your work on Continuation War wasn't enough (and frankly, that very article is far from ready with respect to factual content and NPOV, imho), or if you would like more praise, take a look at: User:Tuomas#Articles_in_need_of_a_check_by_a_native_English_speaker ;-))
/Tuomas 08:03, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Grammar fix
I don't mind the grammar fix, as a matter of fact I encourge you to fix my grammar because I have a habit of typing fast. Thanks Comarde Nick
- compliments
I wanted to compliment you on your civility, something which should be standard on the wiki, but in practice is rare enough to earn my compliments. Cheers, Sam Spade 00:13, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Mediation re
- Indo-European
The article says "The Basque language is unusual in that it does not appear to be related to any known languages." Why do you insist in inserting "living"? Basque does not appear to be related to any known languages, period. It is of course true, that if we go back two or three thousand years, there may be languages to which Basque would then seem to be related, but we don't have any remains of such languages and hence "living" is unnecessary, as Basque does not appear to be related to any dead languages either. Vice 21:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Good point - I was unaware of that. Perhaps then you should include a short reference to Aquitanian in the sentence? Vice 22:24, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- RfA Nonsense
Thank you for the kind words on RfA. I'm not going to dignify the attacks with a response, but I appreciate that you stepped up to speak.
If you're curious: I first became active during the Quickpoll saga. I grew interested in the administrative workings -- but I saw that people tended to vandalize each other's pet articles, so I decided it would be wise to maintain separate accounts for contributing versus talking. The community has affirmed this practice on numerous occasions, so I feel I'm on solid ground -- and I use my real name and valid email for voting and controversial discussions, so I daresay I've got a better claim to legitimacy than certain other users.
As I said, I won't dignify the personal attacks on RfA, because they're irrelevant to the merits of the nomination. But thanks again for stepping to my defense. I noticed it, and I do appreciate it. Cribcage 17:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you
...for fighting the good fight against Shorne/Hanpuk/whateverhisnameistoday. I just saw his long diatribe on RfM...*sigh* I don't know how you do it. It's nice that there's some people willing to continually take on this nutjob in order to stop all our articles on the subject from being trashed. Ambi 10:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)