User talk:Yendor33

It's my Talk Page and I'll cry if I want too.

Please don't NRV me.... whine, please....

Experimenting with Tildes

1 Tilde

~

2 Tildes

~~

3 Tildes

Yendor33

4 Tildes

Yendor33 08:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

5 Tildes

08:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

6 Tildes

08:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)~

I really do appreciate the effort you are going through to have my writings restored and your fondness for them, but kindly request that you cease and desist. I am not against them being posted here and "normal" people reading them (80% of the people here). What I do not want is for my writings to attract people to a hostile site, or for my work to benefit those who caused the hostility. In my mind, if they have driven me away then this work should go as well. If I had been around longer I would see it differently. But because some here were so eager to get rid of me, it is only fair that the work go to. Please, let it go. If you'd like to (and this is only if you'd like) send me an e-mail (I think the button on my user page will connect to my regular email) and I will send you copies of everything I wrote on here (the pics, unless they deleted those too, should be accessable through this site). Otherwise, I did leave one thing I wrote here; I was going to ask that they revert it to the previous edit, but I think it fitting that this one article remain. The article is Asshole, which is how I feel about, well, only about five of the people here. Enjoy. --Imrealized 22:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please Forgive Me

It is not you that owes the apology... I am sorry for the previous letter and I thank you for your persistence. It is because of you and some others and your most gracious support that I have shifted my focus and now Imrealized (well, maybe not just yet). Thank you. --Imrealized 00:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:Noob of the Month

It's pretty discourteous to vote against all candidates other than the one you support just to help that one win. Against votes should only be used when you have a genuine reason that the user shouldn't win the award - for example, some other users voted against a few of the other nominees because they hadn't contributed in a significant amount of time or they simply aren't around much. Those are legitimate causes to vote against someone. There's no indication that you're even aware of the other nominees' contributions. --—rc (t) 02:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Reply:

I don't know about it being discourteous (compared to some people saying "Sucks" or "...subjected to another dramatized progression of wikipsychosis...") but I agree that it is unfair and I have retracted my "Against" votes. It would have been giving the person I supported a +2 advantage instead of a +1 per voting individual as is intended. Thank you for keeping me honest. I did check some of the other nominee's work, for the record. Yendor33 03:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, thanks for being reasonable. The first example you mentioned has some IRC background, I think (though even I don't know the whole story), but you wouldn't know that out of context. --—rc (t) 05:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib

Thanks for the kind words. I'm pretty well done with the article (and I won't have much time for any sort of wiki over the next month anyways). I really just wanted to write something that was better than the rather shoddy article that was there originally. I kept the premise and some of the pictures. I looked pretty hard for a better picture of the dog. As I recall there was a really good one of a guard dog lunging for a prisoner's groin, but I can't find that, just the less tame ones either side of the actual attack. Feel free to work on it a bit more - it could do with a few more laughs. --Skyring 05:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)