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 six seven

This is to let you know that the endowment of both UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee are larger than 300 million. It is ridiculous to say the total endowment of the UW is less than that of an individual UW campus. Miaers 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also your replacement of the UW system website at the external link section with some irrelevant link is considered a vandalism. Miaers 15:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you reply my message. I think the number from the UW official website should be more authoritative and accurate. Not like those number that comes from some unknown organization on the internet. Also please use some brain and be able to see the difference between a part and a whole entity. Miaers 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miaers, you're misinterpreting the number you found on the UW system site; Lordmontu has already explained why. Please stop saying things like "Also please use some brain" [1]; it's a personal attack, and if you continue with such remarks, you may be blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "I misinterpreting the number". UW system includes both UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee. The total endowment of the system should be larger than the total of these two. Shouldn't it be so obvious that the number you are using is wrong? By the way, I didn't attack you in any way. Please stop threatening me. Miaers 21:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miaers, you're taking a number that measures economic impact and saying that it's the endowment. If you want to fix the article, find an official figure for the endowment. And most editors will see statements such as "please use some brain" as a personal attack or incivility, so please don't do it in the future. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you find these words offensive, I'll try not to use them. But I really don't know what else I can use as a susbstitute. So "Please XXX." The economic impact on UW website refers to its funding source. It is equivalent to endowment. Also your replacement of the UW system website at the external link section with some irrelevant link is considered a vandalism. Miaers 21:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miaers, you're not getting the point. Essentially, you've said I'm stupid, which is offensive. You're also using "vandalism" incorrectly; content disputes are not vandalism. Finally, "economic impact" is not the same as a funding source. Why don't we stop this discussion, and if you're still interested in the issue, why don't you look for a source that specifies the system's endowment? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you are stupid directly. So it is not personal attack. Can you tell what else I can use in the above situation that you will not find offensive? What the UW website about is its funding sources. It is totally appropriate to use it as a source. Also why did you replace UW official website in the article's "External link" section with a table on an unknown organization's website? If you don't call this vandalism, what do you call it? Miaers 22:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't say you are stupid directly. So it is not personal attack." Pffffffffff.... -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you let me know if you are ok with my explanation about the endowment figure and the external link in UW system? Miaers 03:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page was recreated... -- Cat ^chi? 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to ask, since my RfA was one of the ones which was supposedly stacked with opposers in this case, I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to deal with it. Would you mind checking that one out? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it, but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them), and there is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.danielfolsom 23:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just read your comment - sorry for bringing it up, I just figured I should try to make sure as many people as possible know about it.danielfolsom 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry. I just noticed I've removed your comment(there were an edit conflict and I was copy pasting my comment and I mistakenly removed yours). I wanted to restore it but I noticed that you've already done that. Sorry again. --Aminz 04:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems user:Alison restored that. :) --Aminz 04:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your response to my WP:SSP report of FrankJones23, MonkeyOverlord4 was vandalising a few days back, so the Puppetmaster is still active. Anyway, I'm not sure how effective an IP block would be in the first place, what with the different IP's on the list, could be a dynamic IP.

Just thought I'd bring this up. Thanks, Omega Archdoom^Talk 09:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lear21 personally attacked me [[2]] in the edit summery of the Superpower page. He has a history of doing this, can you please send him a warning? User:Daniel Chiswick 18 May, 2007.