User talk:Akhilleus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:02, 2 February 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:Akhilleus/archive5. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Previous discussion: one two (Mar 21 2006-July 11 2006) three (July 20 2006-Sept 24 2006) four (Sept 30 2006-Oct 31 2006) five

Some useful shortcuts

Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome

No original research...

Manual of Style

Disambiguation

Cases of suspected sockpuppetry

CheckUser

DNS stuff

man

man do not delete the macedonian translation please. It's finnally time for us balkans to live in the 21st century! It won't change nothing having or not the macedonian translation. Look at other pages how much translations exist! What about giving other exept of the greek? For example why not french, german? So people can read it in there own language! Alexander has had his kingdom in all the teritory greek, macedonian, turky, indian! He is antigue one and it is really stupid if we are doing it!

Please just be friends and thinking mature! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noname real (talk • contribs).

it will be ok for me

I think it will be better if it is written, so if it is not others mk will do the same (puting the name infront of). Let it be please in the first paragraph with others names, i don't see any wrong. He has got also today's MK territory is it is right if it is written in that lang. By this way we can stop further vandalism and discussions about it. It was another user before me to put the translation and then me, and if not me it will be others by me and the story will last forever. So that way i think the discussion will end.

Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noname real (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Again we have a big problem. The same way i may be blocked u may be too. I don't see any difference. It was the best if the way stay in the first paragraph and not infrond off and i had agree.

I am sorry, but this sounds like a threat to me: if not me it will be others by me and the story will last forever... I will keep reverting, u know... For reasons mentioned and explained and supported by logical arguments and scholarly opinions. and, btw, i do not agree. Hectorian 20:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC0

Phaedo

Achilles, I don't think you have reason to say there is a "concensus" that your page is better than mine. Where are you getting this idea? Mine took complaints, to be sure, but yours isn't better. You leave out most of the interesting features. Don't be like your namesake. You know Homer sings of Achilles' "menis" - his terrible, destructive pride. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

It is a rage born of pride. I really can't believe you want to defend this article against mine. You say: "the cause of life can never be dead" ??? I can't work with people who think this is good thinking or good writing. You think a circular argument is "Valid"? Socrates defines the soul to be immortal, and so therefore it is? What logic class was that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brenda maverick (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure if you are reading my comments, because they don't seem to show up on the screen, but if you are going to be this bullish in defending something this bad, AND you manage to have me outnumbered then I am on the wrong playing field. This is really absurd, not to say Mickey Mouse. Brenda maverick 04:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

socks

I suggest that you file a request at WP:RFCU Bucketsofg 05:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goa Inquisition

See this [1] advice which User:Xandar did not follow in his revert-war.Rumpelstiltskin223 17:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hermes

Thanks for the note on polutropos: I should have come to you first anyway! --Wetman 07:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xandar

He just vandalized the Goa Inquisition page again [2]. Please take action against this user. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Sock case addition

Thanks for adding the additional information to the Ekajati sock case. I think it's my first case and I think I've fumbled some of the steps in the process of filing it. It doesn't help that I'm overloaded with the Starwood arbitration. I'm still not entirely sure what I found is absolute proof but it sure looks suspicious to me. Thanks again. If you notice anything missing about what I've done, I'd appreciate you letting me know. It seemed unusually difficult for me to follow the instructions for filing the case. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 06:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SSP

WikiThanks

Thanks for the cleanup work, making a tough task fighting the backlog easier. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must have formatted the case wrong, so could you please help me do it right? Zbl 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alos, I just saw that you called it frivolous. HUh? Zbl 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you block him without due process of law? Zbl 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block is being lifted on him and another user, so will you now help me format this right? Zbl 01:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the hell's going on here, but I did unblock User:Elkwjdvc after assurances from the user and Zbl that Elkwjdvc was not a sockpuppet of User:Puppop (which was the reason I blocked Elkwjdvc in the first place) . . . But seeing Zbl's messages on your talk page, I'm wondering whether this is an attempted conspiracy against the user originally reported by Zbl at SSP. Thoughts? · j e r s y k o talk · 02:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC) nothing to see here, move along . . . · j e r s y k o talk · 02:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that? What has Supasoldier ever done to me/Puppop/Elk? Zbl 02:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but please help some more?

Thanks for helping with the formatting, I was having a confusing time. However, you got it slightly wrong. User:Nintendude2000 and User:Solid Snake999 are supposed to be the puppets and the puppetmaster is supposed to be User:Quade999. Can this be fixed? Or should it be left the way it is? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship?

I only "met" you a few days ago, but was impressed. I have looked at several recent contributions, and was impressed. I've looked at your depth of contributions, and ... you can guess. You seem a more suitable admin candidate than I was, possibly more suitable than I am now. Would you accept a nomination for adminship? (It's a partly selfish question, given where I suspect you would start helping out even more ... :-) ) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 ==Thanks but please help some more?==
 Thanks for helping with the formatting, I was having a confusing time. However, you got it slightly wrong. [[User:Nintendude2000]] and [[User:Solid Snake999]] are supposed to be the puppets and the puppetmaster is supposed to be [[User:Quade999]]. Can this be fixed? Or should it be left the way it is? [[User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea|Mermaid from the Baltic Sea]] 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
+== Adminship? ==
+I only "met" you a few days ago, but was impressed. I have looked at several recent contributions, and was impressed. I've looked at your depth of contributions, and ... you can guess. You seem a more suitable admin candidate than I was, possibly more suitable than I am now. Would you accept a nomination for adminship? (It's a partly selfish question, given where I suspect you would start helping out even more ... :-) ) --[[User:AnonEMouse|AnonEMouse]] <sup>[[User_talk:AnonEMouse|(squeak)]]</sup> 19:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)