User talk:Xiong/The supreme, inviolate, pure virtue of Wikipedia

Correct
You are correct; the page is blank. That's the point. If you can find one virtue which has not been subordinated, corrupted, or debased, feel free to put it on. But if I can produce a counterexample, I'll remove the spurious claim. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 21:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

no executions
I reverted Skomorokh's removal of a good faith edit: Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) If Skomorokh doesn't like my proposal, he should argue, not delete.
 * 2) Give at least Xion the opportunity to react.
 * 3) The page was never meant to stay empty, see intro.
 * 4) If Xion or anyone else thinks they can provide a counterexample, please do. For the moment, the proposal stands unchallenged, and is in accordance with Xion's criterion.
 * 5) The example refutes Xion's allegation that no such virtue exists. If you find another virtue more deserving of being called "supreme", put it on.

It's here
I admire your panache, but I don't think that's a virtue. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if Xiong is the arbiter of truth on this page, and he made The supreme, inviolate, pure virtue of humans, and that lists "being here" as a virtue, I think I'm in the clear, or at least maybe deserving of an explanation... :) - Onmyounomichi (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. The link in your edit summary pointed into mainspace, so I didn't get to see the page. SNAFU. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)