Please go here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). I voted for delete. You may also want to (if that's your preference) Merecat 08:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.
Merecat 00:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I saw your edit here. What's up with that article?
I was removing a spammers comments. That is all. Sorry for causing any problems. -- Woohookitty (meow) 22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey Tbeatty, Thanks for standing up for Merecat on his present discussion page and also for standing up for me on my talk page. I really appreciate that a lot. I have a question. How long is Merecat blocked for..a day? or longer? thanks, Maggie thewolfstar 14:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't stalk my edits. Also, it's bad form to edit someone else's text, and move your edited version to their comment section as if they wrote that there. I'm sure galt will be fine with it, but your edit makes him look even worse since he already posted one irrelevant ad for my blog right above where you added yet another such ad. Anyway, I wasn't trying to censor anyone when I deleted that; but it's irrelevant to the discussion and it does not belong on my comment section. If you think there is vital information in that post, it should be moved to the talk page, with a note that you were the one who edited his words.
If you have a problem with me or my contributions to Wikipedia, let us discourse directly about it on the talk pages of the relevant articles. I'm interested in contributing to wikipedia, not in becoming the mortal enemy of every conservative on this site. If you don't like my blog, take it up there - the blog has a discussion forum where you can comment in any way you like. But let's keep our wikipedia actions focused on improving the articles instead of on advertising my blog.-- csloat 23:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about this: Bush family conspiracy theory? I think it's a WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:OR violation.
Hey Tbeatty, I just wanted to thank you for what you said under the strong throw out altogether section. I am still pretty new at Wikipedia but am being watched like a hawk. I need all the help I can get at this point. I've been harassed, lied to, insulted, lawyerized in debate and blocked four times since I joined on 3/22/06. And it was done illegally each time, I checked into it carefully. All I want to do is bring neutrality back into Wiki articles. At the bottom of my page is a warning left by SlimVirgin. Can you help me please? Maggie thewolfstar 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I added a "Controversy" section... let's see if we can make it stick :) -- FairNBalanced 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to say thanks for voting in my RfA! To "blocking war" was over on Wikinews a few hours after it began; just wanted to clarify that. I'm glad you voted your conscience. My RfA failed to gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted the nomination - a good learning experience. - Amgine 16:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I will not unblock him. I have placed a request for other administrators to review the block at WP:AN/I, and if another administrator chooses to unblock him or lessen his block duration I won't reverse it. · Ka t efan0 (scribble)/ poll 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The recommendation by Mindspillage is on Ryan's RfA request that Rex_4 be reopened after 6 months of no disruption. Quote: I'm not actually opposed to banned users coming back in such a way that we can't tell who they are because they're not editing disruptively -- Tbeatty 17:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ryan keps saying "Merecat was disruptive", but that's not how I see it. Merecat won the RfAr filed by Prometheuspan (it was not acccepted), Merecat clearly has community support on his side on the RfC filed by Nescio and Merecat's position regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush got "overwhelming" community support. As I see it, editors like Ryan are fearful and panicky when it comes to dealing with the conservative editors, that's why they like to get them "banned". Perhaps you see why Rex071404 let his acccount go dark, effectively quitting it and also why User:Anon Texan always edited from IP only and never made an account - why bother trying to integrate into a regular accepted editors role, when zealots like Ryan can hound you from edit to edit until you either quit or are "banned"? By the way, both "Rex" and "Merecat" are currently "blocked" from making edits, so how does a complaintant like Ryan think his RfAr's could ever be answered? Also, I see that Ryan currently has a Arb case against himself/herself. Couldn't happen to a nicer person. Finally, since Ryan such a genius, perhaps he/she will list a few of the so-called "disruptive" edits which Mercat made. 216.239.38.136 09:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Thanks. Xemoi 01:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you please insert the correct sock-template and not revert what is a very valid warning?
Nomen Nescio
Gnothi seauton
22:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 02:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems like Prometheuspan has conveniently "quit" the wiki all of a sudden. That wasn't one of Nescio's sockpuppets, was it? 216.239.38.136 08:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Kevin Baas nominated himself for Admin and went down in flames - FAST! Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kevin Baas. PS: Take confidence that you are making good edits. Merecat 03:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Diffs are here.-- Tbeatty 23:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, could you take a look at this article as well as recent debates over content? I think you\'d be a good editor to help clean up this article some. It seems to be heavily stricken by POV problems on both side. I added external links that I found through google although they themselves are quite POV in their origin but at least they\'re not being used as citations. -- Strothra 02:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought you had looked at this already
This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.
For the Arbitration Committee. -- Tony Sidaway 13:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 10:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to say this without gushing, but YOU THE MAN. I've been battling that guy for months. Thanks for weighing in against the List of Songs cruft. Cheers. Morton devonshire 06:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed an addendum you made to User:Gau's comments in the AfD in question about his account being a possible "single-user" account. I checked the editor's contribution history, and while he is not a heavy-duty editor here, his edit history is long-standing and varied enough that it's highly unlikely that the username was only established for incidents like this. The warning statement you placed is not one that should be added unless the edit history leaves little to no doubt that this is the case (e.g. newly-established or narrowly-focused edit histories). Of course, the text of your response to his comments remains. -- H·G ( words/ works) 07:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
All set. It really had nothing to do with political leanings, which in my opinion have no and should never be allowed to play a role in deciding content. Your idea to rename it all and redirect back in applicable things was the best one. I'm pretty liberal, and don't particularly care for Bush, but how Wikipedia runs in my mind trumps what I feel and should for everyone else at all times. We can be POV but content NEVER should be. Thanks for being cool about everything. rootology ( T) 19:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now that the Afd has failed, we need to start paring-down the List of Songs article -- I just tried, and the Owner reverted me, and put a vandalism notice on my talk page. So, he's going to be trouble, and not let go of the WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:V problems. I will work on it this weekend with you if you're available. Peace out. Morton devonshire 21:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've remvoed the revisions that were since reverted regarding the mistaken information on that page. — xaosflux Talk 01:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the update on this user and his socks. I've blocked all the others not already dealt with, as the pattern and style of vandalism was pretty obvious. I think that it's probably not worth pursuing the checkuser request in this case, particularly as they're pretty overworked as things stand. I'll leave that to your judgement however. I'll also put the articles on my watchlist to keep an eye out for future socks. Cheers. -- Cactus.man ✍ 07:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
He's not edited in over an hour [2]. If he vandalises again, report him where you did. Buck ets ofg✐ 23:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There are LOTS of tools out there to help non-admins fight vandals. I don't think any one of them can do exactly what you described but, armed with a variety of tools, you can do a lot of good work without too much effort. Some are stand alone applications, some are javascripts that you need to incorporate into your monobook.js (or equivalent, although some don't work with other skins). Check out the following:
That's some stuff to get you started :-) If you need help getting things working give me a shout. Good luck. -- Cactus.man ✍ 09:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey! We have exactly the same number of edits! Bizarre!
Anyway - re: the Malkin article... The Malkinwatch blog doesn't appear to be a commercial site. We have kept it in the article for more than a year through consensus. My feeling is that it is the only legitimate place to go for consistent, honest, unabashed criticism of Malkin. Remember that she has either the world's most popular political blog or the 2nd or 3rd most popular. There is a great deal of praise written for her in the blogosphere.
If we're interested, and I think we should be, in give Wikipedia readers a glimpse into contemporary criticism of Malkin, the Malkinwatch blog is where we should be sending them.
Keep up your otherwise excellent work! Thanks, -- AStanhope 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Tbeaty, The member counts come from the DU.COM homepage (for the total). Total Active counts is the sum of all the profiles. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=118986 for an example of the active profiles on the left. Just add'm up to get the total actives users. Dman727 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I could use your help over at State terrorism by United States of America -- the editors over there are blatantly disregarding Wikipedia policy with respect to citing blogs and self-published sources. Thanks. Morton devonshire 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Users talk pages reveal lots about them and often give other users a chance to understand eachother. That is my Wikipedia tip of the day. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
No, no, put it back. I can play with it. Cheers. Morton devonshire 01:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will maybe be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
NBGPWS 05:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a feeling Che is not going to be too happy with me today. Morton devonshire 23:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is an archived attack. Before understanding my posts travb called me a liar and "threatened to report me." I am sure I will need this in the future. -- Tbeatty 02:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Now they're try to permanently cement the article. See Talk:List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks Morton devonshire 06:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush in case you want to weigh-in. Morton devonshire 05:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will possibly be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (deleting 'admitted drug addict' from Protest Warrior page) NBGPWS 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I won't mention any names or specifics, but the user antics at PW over the last 24 hours have been really funny. And no, Gama my shadow, I'm not referring to you. Morton devonshire 01:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Tbeatty, what would you think about filing a Request for Comment about NBGPWS's behavior? Given that he's now reverting typo corrections because the summary wasn't used, I think he's out of control and has gone too far. -- Neverborn 04:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe your unfounded accusation of me using a sock puppet and you use of warnings and warning symbols on my page might be considered personal attacks, and violations of WP. I will be issuing an official complaint if I can determine that you have violated WP.
NBGPWS 06:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Please go here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). I voted for delete. You may also want to (if that's your preference) Merecat 08:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see this Wikipedia:Deletion review#Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush.
Merecat 00:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I saw your edit here. What's up with that article?
I was removing a spammers comments. That is all. Sorry for causing any problems. -- Woohookitty (meow) 22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey Tbeatty, Thanks for standing up for Merecat on his present discussion page and also for standing up for me on my talk page. I really appreciate that a lot. I have a question. How long is Merecat blocked for..a day? or longer? thanks, Maggie thewolfstar 14:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't stalk my edits. Also, it's bad form to edit someone else's text, and move your edited version to their comment section as if they wrote that there. I'm sure galt will be fine with it, but your edit makes him look even worse since he already posted one irrelevant ad for my blog right above where you added yet another such ad. Anyway, I wasn't trying to censor anyone when I deleted that; but it's irrelevant to the discussion and it does not belong on my comment section. If you think there is vital information in that post, it should be moved to the talk page, with a note that you were the one who edited his words.
If you have a problem with me or my contributions to Wikipedia, let us discourse directly about it on the talk pages of the relevant articles. I'm interested in contributing to wikipedia, not in becoming the mortal enemy of every conservative on this site. If you don't like my blog, take it up there - the blog has a discussion forum where you can comment in any way you like. But let's keep our wikipedia actions focused on improving the articles instead of on advertising my blog.-- csloat 23:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you think about this: Bush family conspiracy theory? I think it's a WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:OR violation.
Hey Tbeatty, I just wanted to thank you for what you said under the strong throw out altogether section. I am still pretty new at Wikipedia but am being watched like a hawk. I need all the help I can get at this point. I've been harassed, lied to, insulted, lawyerized in debate and blocked four times since I joined on 3/22/06. And it was done illegally each time, I checked into it carefully. All I want to do is bring neutrality back into Wiki articles. At the bottom of my page is a warning left by SlimVirgin. Can you help me please? Maggie thewolfstar 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I added a "Controversy" section... let's see if we can make it stick :) -- FairNBalanced 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to say thanks for voting in my RfA! To "blocking war" was over on Wikinews a few hours after it began; just wanted to clarify that. I'm glad you voted your conscience. My RfA failed to gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted the nomination - a good learning experience. - Amgine 16:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I will not unblock him. I have placed a request for other administrators to review the block at WP:AN/I, and if another administrator chooses to unblock him or lessen his block duration I won't reverse it. · Ka t efan0 (scribble)/ poll 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The recommendation by Mindspillage is on Ryan's RfA request that Rex_4 be reopened after 6 months of no disruption. Quote: I'm not actually opposed to banned users coming back in such a way that we can't tell who they are because they're not editing disruptively -- Tbeatty 17:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Ryan keps saying "Merecat was disruptive", but that's not how I see it. Merecat won the RfAr filed by Prometheuspan (it was not acccepted), Merecat clearly has community support on his side on the RfC filed by Nescio and Merecat's position regarding Rationales to impeach George W. Bush got "overwhelming" community support. As I see it, editors like Ryan are fearful and panicky when it comes to dealing with the conservative editors, that's why they like to get them "banned". Perhaps you see why Rex071404 let his acccount go dark, effectively quitting it and also why User:Anon Texan always edited from IP only and never made an account - why bother trying to integrate into a regular accepted editors role, when zealots like Ryan can hound you from edit to edit until you either quit or are "banned"? By the way, both "Rex" and "Merecat" are currently "blocked" from making edits, so how does a complaintant like Ryan think his RfAr's could ever be answered? Also, I see that Ryan currently has a Arb case against himself/herself. Couldn't happen to a nicer person. Finally, since Ryan such a genius, perhaps he/she will list a few of the so-called "disruptive" edits which Mercat made. 216.239.38.136 09:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Thanks. Xemoi 01:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Could you please insert the correct sock-template and not revert what is a very valid warning?
Nomen Nescio
Gnothi seauton
22:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 02:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems like Prometheuspan has conveniently "quit" the wiki all of a sudden. That wasn't one of Nescio's sockpuppets, was it? 216.239.38.136 08:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Kevin Baas nominated himself for Admin and went down in flames - FAST! Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kevin Baas. PS: Take confidence that you are making good edits. Merecat 03:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Diffs are here.-- Tbeatty 23:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, could you take a look at this article as well as recent debates over content? I think you\'d be a good editor to help clean up this article some. It seems to be heavily stricken by POV problems on both side. I added external links that I found through google although they themselves are quite POV in their origin but at least they\'re not being used as citations. -- Strothra 02:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought you had looked at this already
This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.
For the Arbitration Committee. -- Tony Sidaway 13:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 10:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to say this without gushing, but YOU THE MAN. I've been battling that guy for months. Thanks for weighing in against the List of Songs cruft. Cheers. Morton devonshire 06:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed an addendum you made to User:Gau's comments in the AfD in question about his account being a possible "single-user" account. I checked the editor's contribution history, and while he is not a heavy-duty editor here, his edit history is long-standing and varied enough that it's highly unlikely that the username was only established for incidents like this. The warning statement you placed is not one that should be added unless the edit history leaves little to no doubt that this is the case (e.g. newly-established or narrowly-focused edit histories). Of course, the text of your response to his comments remains. -- H·G ( words/ works) 07:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
All set. It really had nothing to do with political leanings, which in my opinion have no and should never be allowed to play a role in deciding content. Your idea to rename it all and redirect back in applicable things was the best one. I'm pretty liberal, and don't particularly care for Bush, but how Wikipedia runs in my mind trumps what I feel and should for everyone else at all times. We can be POV but content NEVER should be. Thanks for being cool about everything. rootology ( T) 19:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now that the Afd has failed, we need to start paring-down the List of Songs article -- I just tried, and the Owner reverted me, and put a vandalism notice on my talk page. So, he's going to be trouble, and not let go of the WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:V problems. I will work on it this weekend with you if you're available. Peace out. Morton devonshire 21:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've remvoed the revisions that were since reverted regarding the mistaken information on that page. — xaosflux Talk 01:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the update on this user and his socks. I've blocked all the others not already dealt with, as the pattern and style of vandalism was pretty obvious. I think that it's probably not worth pursuing the checkuser request in this case, particularly as they're pretty overworked as things stand. I'll leave that to your judgement however. I'll also put the articles on my watchlist to keep an eye out for future socks. Cheers. -- Cactus.man ✍ 07:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
He's not edited in over an hour [2]. If he vandalises again, report him where you did. Buck ets ofg✐ 23:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There are LOTS of tools out there to help non-admins fight vandals. I don't think any one of them can do exactly what you described but, armed with a variety of tools, you can do a lot of good work without too much effort. Some are stand alone applications, some are javascripts that you need to incorporate into your monobook.js (or equivalent, although some don't work with other skins). Check out the following:
That's some stuff to get you started :-) If you need help getting things working give me a shout. Good luck. -- Cactus.man ✍ 09:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey! We have exactly the same number of edits! Bizarre!
Anyway - re: the Malkin article... The Malkinwatch blog doesn't appear to be a commercial site. We have kept it in the article for more than a year through consensus. My feeling is that it is the only legitimate place to go for consistent, honest, unabashed criticism of Malkin. Remember that she has either the world's most popular political blog or the 2nd or 3rd most popular. There is a great deal of praise written for her in the blogosphere.
If we're interested, and I think we should be, in give Wikipedia readers a glimpse into contemporary criticism of Malkin, the Malkinwatch blog is where we should be sending them.
Keep up your otherwise excellent work! Thanks, -- AStanhope 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Tbeaty, The member counts come from the DU.COM homepage (for the total). Total Active counts is the sum of all the profiles. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=118986 for an example of the active profiles on the left. Just add'm up to get the total actives users. Dman727 02:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I could use your help over at State terrorism by United States of America -- the editors over there are blatantly disregarding Wikipedia policy with respect to citing blogs and self-published sources. Thanks. Morton devonshire 17:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Users talk pages reveal lots about them and often give other users a chance to understand eachother. That is my Wikipedia tip of the day. -- zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
No, no, put it back. I can play with it. Cheers. Morton devonshire 01:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will maybe be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
NBGPWS 05:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a feeling Che is not going to be too happy with me today. Morton devonshire 23:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is an archived attack. Before understanding my posts travb called me a liar and "threatened to report me." I am sure I will need this in the future. -- Tbeatty 02:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Now they're try to permanently cement the article. See Talk:List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks Morton devonshire 06:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush in case you want to weigh-in. Morton devonshire 05:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will possibly be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (deleting 'admitted drug addict' from Protest Warrior page) NBGPWS 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I won't mention any names or specifics, but the user antics at PW over the last 24 hours have been really funny. And no, Gama my shadow, I'm not referring to you. Morton devonshire 01:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Tbeatty, what would you think about filing a Request for Comment about NBGPWS's behavior? Given that he's now reverting typo corrections because the summary wasn't used, I think he's out of control and has gone too far. -- Neverborn 04:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe your unfounded accusation of me using a sock puppet and you use of warnings and warning symbols on my page might be considered personal attacks, and violations of WP. I will be issuing an official complaint if I can determine that you have violated WP.
NBGPWS 06:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)