User talk:132.241.245.49/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please click here to leave me a new message.
I will typically answer on your talk page to make sure you get the notification.


Contents

[edit] Is it fair to say Joanie Laurer is intersexual?

Is it fair to say Joanie Laurer is intersexual? User:132.241.245.49

Unless you know of medical evidence of an intersex condition in her, no, it is not. Merely being female-bodied and stuffed full of hormones is not intersex. And do sign your comments, too. -- AlexR 06:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I call myself CD

and I've seen a pic of her groin and in my opinion Joanie has both a "pistol" and a "holster"

would you like to see the pic?

signed CD User:132.241.245.49

Signing is done by using three ~'s in a row. When you then save the edit, it will be replaced by your signature. 4 ~'s gets replaced by your signature and the date. This talk is not for the speculation of whether or not someone is intersexual. - UtherSRG 01:12, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

well I want a second opinion before I say she is or not can I get a volunteer?

signed CD User:132.241.245.49

No thanks. You do not seem to be able to follow directions. - UtherSRG 04:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

and you have poor manners

The only one who displays poor manners are you, Mr IP. Following the usual formating for discussions and signing entries are a necessity, and that has been pointed out to you already. Of course you are not complied to follow - nobody else, however, is complied to answer you. So EOD, until you get some basic manners together. -- AlexR 10:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what is this hate on the new guy week?

If your friend wishes to argue with me he is welcome to but I don't seek a second conflict and frankly it is nasty people that make me hesitate to be anything other than a annon.

signed CD

Wikipedia is a community of sorts. All communities have expected norms of behavior, and have negative reactions of various degrees to breachs of those norms. You have consistently shown that you have no care to sign your comments in the expected norm for Wikipedia, and you are receiving a negative reaction to that breach. Are you really surprised, or just immature? By continuing to breach even the simplest of norms, you are showing that you do not want to be treated as anything but an outsider. - UtherSRG 19:05, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit immature but mostly just scatter brained. User:132.241.245.49

[edit] neutral point of view

Regardless of how true your contributions are, you need to write with a more neutral and detached tone. Don't make things sound like you're trying to attack or undermine somebody.

Welcome to Wikipedia, btw. :) Since you've been around for a while, how about registering? It makes things a lot more convenient. -- ran (talk) 21:44, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. Scott Gall 04:38, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

[edit] how?

I was unaware I had conected to a comercial link.

[edit] Left Behind

Can you explain your addition to the Left Behind article? Nicolae wasn't a Catholic, as I recall. If I'm wrong just correct me. Eric119 22:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your editing

Edits like this and this are a blatant violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and border on vandalism. You've apparently been around here long enough to know better, so please start abiding by our policies or stop editing. RadicalSubversiv E 29 June 2005 21:56 (UTC)

"though it is unclear how similar his version of a DOP would be to that of our founding fathers."

is NPOV.

the rest can be done without.

[edit] my bad

BTW I'm sorry about the Rove post I'm just starting to get over his apaulling claim that all liberal terrorist sympathizers.

Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia, not an outlet for your political anger. If I see you editing this way again, I will bring it to the attention of an administrator. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages. RadicalSubversiv E 29 June 2005 23:33 (UTC)

[edit] Debating on Wikipedia

Please keep debates on wikipedia about the article instead of religious ideologies. Thanks Falphin 7 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)

[edit] I'll try to do that in the future

I'll try to do that in the future but I had no desire to personalize the issue. She forced that on me.

  • Thats fine I posted the same comments on his/her talk page. If you want to vent your anger on such issues I know some good debating(Christian and Atheist). Also, please sign your comments with for tildes ~~~~. Thanks again. Falphin 7 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)

[edit] just wondering

why did you change my user page? --kizzle July 8, 2005 00:52 (UTC)

[edit] Gulf War

Please discuss your changes rather than simply reverting. Highway of Death is not a phrase only used by "Saddam supporters and apologists," and saying so is wrong and POV. The burying tactics have been much discussed on the talk page, please join that discussion rather than repeatedly reading the same misspelled content. - SimonP 20:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gulf Warring

Sorry, But to my knowledge this "highway of death" thing is connected to Ramsey Clark who seems to only see the bad America does an never the bad dictators do.

Also IMHO "buried alive" summons to mind images of people traped for hours underground before sufficating hence I thing it would be NPOV if we just said they were killed.

BTW no I am not a Bush jr or sr supporter.

[edit] Scaife political identification

Richard Mellon Scaife is not widely considered to be a libertarian; however, if you do believe this is the case and that the label is necessary to include, please cite uses/sources and evidence and let's discuss it at Talk:Richard Mellon Scaife. Classifications of this sort are frequently controversial (see list of people described as neoconservatives for instance), and nothing is really taken away from the article by not pigeonholing him under a specific philosophical heading. - choster 19:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Many of your edits are inappropriate

Many of your edits are obviously heavily reflective of a particular point of view. This breaches Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Please note that it isn't relevant whether your opinions are correct or not. Regardless of whether they are, Wikipedia articles should reflect the balance of published opinion, and sources must be cited for all controversial points. Wikipedia is not a political debating forum, and I would ask you to throughly re-evaluate your approach. Calsicol 12:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inapproriate edits

132.241.245.49, for awhile now you have been editing Wikipedia but in some articles you are unable to grasp NPOV. You have even vandalised pages such as inserting Ted Bundy in the Republican Party article. For your own sake I ask that you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for a guideline on editing appropriately on controversial topics. Thank you, Derktar 05:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC).

Even if he identified himself as a Republican do you see why he's not listed? Because a. He's not a notable Republican, very obscure, and b. It isn't neutral to do so and portrays a slanted view. If you need help on striving for NPOV drop me a line or an admin and we can help you keep Wikipedia neutral. Cheers, Derktar 05:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC).
Well that is a generic list of Eagle Scouts whereas the Republican Party, Dmeocratic Party, etc are more for famous politicians or widely known figures of that party. Derktar 06:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC).
Well I didn't write the article so i'm not sure, if he was proven to be an Eagle Scout then he should be on it, whereas not every famous Democrat or Republican is on their respective party pages.

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 05:58, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Brokenfrog 02:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] isn't that sort of like denying it?

Isn't omiting him from that list like denying it?

No, someone could go to the Ted Bundy page and see for themselves, associating him on the page is not NPOV. If you did list every Republican and Democrat on their party pages it would get to long and out of control with their being huge amounts of POV in them. Derktar 06:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC).
I suppose that would'nt be POV, just in case you might want to check with an admin and get a second opinion. Derktar 06:14, August 30, 2005 (UTC).
No trouble whatsoever, if you ever need help don't hesitate to ask, you are a worthwhile contributor and I would hate to see you leave. I think I'll turn in for the night though, Derktar 06:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Political effects of Hurricane Katrina

Hi. I respect your sentiments in the Political effects of Hurricane Katrina article, but we're trying to avoid accusations that the article is biased, and putting in loaded comments simply gives ammunition to those who would write it off as POV. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 02:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, the list of issues does note as an issue "Whether factors of race and class in the United States have caused those most in need to be treated unequally in a time of crisis", and there is discussion of that later in the article. Feel free to add your comment to that part of the discussion if you can attribute it to a reputable source. -- BD2412 talk 02:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the Jesse Jackson quote already in the article is actually more to the point, but that article is a perfect source from which to draw material. -- BD2412 talk 03:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, the article you cited doesn't directly address your original edit - specifically, it doesn't compare the current crisis to 9/11, and it doesn't suggest that the swift attention to New York was because the victims were rich and white. That may be true, but you need a source that compares the two events directly if you would like to note that comparison in the article. -- BD2412 talk 03:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ku Klux Klan

I think it's entirely likely that they had respect for Benjamin, but it's also possible that they resented his bugging out to England. I've never seen any mention one way or another regarding KKK attitudes toward Judah Benjamin, though -- that's why I asked for cites. (Without them, it's original research. The rest of that section didn't work with only the example of Booth. Besides, wouldn't Booth (and perhaps Benjamin) be a special case, anyway? Seems to me it wouldn't be hard at all to be strongly anti-Catholic but even more strongly pro-Lincoln's-assassin. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I do think you are right -- that the anti-Jewish and anti-Catholic parts of Klan ideology wasn't institutionalized in the first Klan. However, we need more than our opinions and conclusions to include this in Wikipedia; without sources that explicitly back up our conclusions, it is original research and as such unsuitable for Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] September 7

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. please don't remove large amounts of text without discussing them first on Talk pageKewp 07:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Bidwell Article

Hi there, I've just done some expansion and rewording of the Ann Bidwell article. I think it is no longer in danger of being in copyright violation. Since "stumbling across" her existence via the AFD page, I really do think she was a notable figure and that the article should be kept in Wikipedia. So, thanks for creating the article in the first place. I wonder, if you have time, could you check my edits for additional items that could be wiki-linked? I did not have time to do that today, and will not be able to devote much time to Wikipedia in the next week. Also, I wonder if you'd consider taking a look at the information about Annie in the John Bidwell article, and consider making some edits similar to what I did for Annie, to avoid the copyright violation. Cheers, LiniShu 06:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Regarding your edit to Wide Awakes: Please always use the edit summaries, especially when deleting material. Undescribed deletions by anonymous editors are very likely to be reverted. Thanks, -Willmcw 04:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio question

Hello, to answer your question from 17 September, "Is copying info from other parts of wikipedia a copyvio?", the answer is, as I understand it, "No, not at all". The exception, however, would be if the info on the "first" wikipedia page were a copyvio from some external source; then copying it verbatim to another part of wikipedia would be a repitition of the original copyvio, which seemed to be the case with the Bidwells. Hope that clears things up, LiniShu 05:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted Arguments against Harding/Klan Edits

I've reverted your edits to the section arguments against Harding in the Klan. The wording of that section was purposly chosen to 1) Provide that primary evidence from reliable sources does not exist to support the theory that Harding was a member of the Klan; 2) That Harding's behaviors in office were contrary (and verifiable) to that of the Klan agenda and 3) That arguments linking Harding to Klan are hearsey (ie, someone told someone who told someone what the first person claimed to have heard). When you remove that information and insert that arguments are "flimsy", without supporting thatword, you remove the NPOV aspect of the facts and make the argument POV. If you can provide first person, primary information to the contrary of this argument (letters from the Klan to Harding, letters in which Harding speaks highly of the Klan or backs their programs and agendas), then please do so. Personally, I have to doubt your sincerity on this matter because you do not use a Wikipedia identity, nor do you sign your "correspondence" with a signature. Stu 12:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please

My reply, on my talk page, is this:

"I believe that the wicked should be stalked. I count among the wicked those editors who are perhaps well-meaning, but incompetent; a hard-working, cretinous editor is as disruptive as a deliberate vandal. You're a very poor editor, and Wikipedia would be better off without you. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)"

In summary, I believe that this editor is not quite one of the evil vandals who twist and abuse Wikipedia; he's just a very, very poor editor. Given that he doesn't have a username, and that he's very prolific, it would probably be best to block this IP address. I'll ponder an RfC, although I'm not sure that "incompetence" is grounds for a block and, via RfA, an eventual ban. Mr .49, I'll be watching you. You're useless. Every time I revert one of your useless edits, I feel good. I enjoy it. I like it. It makes me feel a little bit happier. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King of the Hill vandal

63.19.141.209 and 63.19.214.202 are the same person and he does nothing but vandalize king of the hill articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs)

Both of those IPs, as well as 6 others have been blocked for 24 hours. You can see the (presumably) full list here. Thanks for your alertness! Please let me know if you spot other IPs of the same vandal. Owen× ☎ 22:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George Wallace Jr.

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Fire Star 04:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copy and paste

Do not copy and paste stuff from web sites. This is considered a copyright violation and will be deleted. Thanks. Sasquatcht|c 04:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures huh?

Well, if you feel inclined to do so, go right ahead. But I won't be quick to jump on the bandwagon though. :-)

Hey, are you a single user who's been contributing to Wikipedia all this time? --HappyCamper 19:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Awesome. Then I'll assume you're one of the good IPs around here. Surely it must be irritating at times to receive messages which don't apply to you, like the ones above? Why not get an account? :-) --HappyCamper 22:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] swich made

swich made

  • First, what switch do you mean, and to what, and could you please learn to sign your Wikipedia comments with fout tildas ~~~~ Stu 22:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poor language skills

I suggest that until you have grasped the basics of the English language, you don't try to make grammar corrections. WMarsh 04:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar the Grouch

Don't add humour or commentary to articles. -- user:zanimum

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Longhair 19:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don Young

Feel free to incorporate information from that link, but just adding a link to an article doesn't add much value to the article, that's why it was removed. Take the information and incorporate it somehow, then use that article link as a source. It's just a matter of incorporating it properly. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mel Carnahan

Hi! I noticed your edits on this page. Since Mel Carnahan died in October 2000 and the Bush administration did not start until January 2001, I don't see how he could be a target of Bush administration reprisals. Are there specific incidents you are refering to? Can you cite a source? I've left a note about this at the article talk page if you would like to respond there. Thanks! TMS63112 07:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Cheney and Harry Whittington

Hey there - I've removed the link [1] you added to these articles, since it seems to be irrelevant at best, and self-promotion/commercial linking at worst. There are plenty of reputable sources that can be referenced, without having to delve into blogs. There would just be too many of them, really. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 00:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] February 2006

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. +Hexagon1 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolls

Yeah, they do that. Some of them should come with signs that read "Danger: Explosive." You know, it would be easier to tell you apart from the trolls if you registered a user name (I'm envisioning something like "Not Anonymous", or some such). – ClockworkSoul 23:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feb. 2006

Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kilmer

If Kilmer's paternal great-grandather was Cherokee as well, I'm sure he would've just said "Grandmother" instead of great-grandmother (all "uhs" aside). Check out this link as well - interview for Thudnerheart - also says "Great-grandmother" - [2]. JackO'Lantern 00:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and we don't need to say "diverse ethnic background". It's implied when we list so many ethnicities. JackO'Lantern 01:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think we should use a really simple standard for putting people in categories based on ethnicity. If they are "fully" of that group, list. If they have a parent of that group, yes. If they have any less (usually just a grandparent) we should put them in if they've expressed specific identification with that group. It's different for lists, because you can explain anything. I've noticed certain editors putting in people to "Italian-Americans" who barely have an Italian grandparent, and other editors taking people out of "Jewish Americans" because they father is Jewish but their mother isn't! There are so many different "laws" for each group (heck, Italian-American gangsters don't consider someone Italian unless they're 100%) that I think using the rational I just explained, and using it for all groups, is probably best (and this would eliminate the problem of putting Kilmer under the eight or so different categories). Btw, it's pretty clear that it is just a great-grandmother - sometimes it's stretched out to "grandmother", but when Kilmer is asked specifically about it, he mentions "great-grandmother", like in the Actors Studio interview. I'm surprised that Lipton didn't ask Kilmer as to how the Mongolian and Sephardic Jewish "grew on his family tree", those are definitely more exotic. JackO'Lantern 01:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe he isn't sure. However, I am really interested to know where his Mongolian and Sephardic roots came from. It's too bad they're not explained anywhere on the net, as far as I could find. JackO'Lantern 01:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking, too. The first Jews in America were Sephardic, so that part makes sense. But what I can't even guess at is where his Mongolian ancestry is from. As far as I know, Mongolians never immigrated to the US. JackO'Lantern 01:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Probably, but whoah, in that case he's really going further back. Someone out to research and publish a full family tree. JackO'Lantern 01:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy vampire

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"No Psychic Vampire has ever been able to prove their abilities via scientic testing", though better than the earlier version that you tried to insert, is uncited (see WP:CITE). There is no indication that testing has been carried out; if you have information on this (which can be cited), please add it. Of course I think that belief in psychic vampires is on a level with belief in alien abductions, demonic possession, and intelligent design, but we have standards for articles that must be met.
I've removed the second warning, as this time there's room to assume good faith, but if you want to add material to the article, please do so within Wikipedia policy and guidelines for editing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Coulter

Please see: Talk:Ann_Coulter#Racist_vs._controversial . Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

See WP:3RR; please put more emphasis into discussion on the talk page rather than simply making reverts. ~ PseudoSudo 08:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No there has not been three reverts no I am not gaming the system and yes I have used discuss.

132.241.245.49 08:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continued at User talk:PseudoSudo#Ann Coulter ~ PseudoSudo 08:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category: LGBT serial killers

I have reverted your addition of this nonexistent category to several pages. In many cases, it is not sourced in the article what connection these serial killers have; even if they had a connection, the intersection of LGBT people and serial killers is probably not notable enough for its own category. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

this category has been deleted by consensus if you continue to add it to articles you will be blocked. Arniep 22:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, it is accepted to categorize crime by country because different countries have different laws. It is not correct to categorize crime by sexuality. Regards Arniep 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you telling me in some Nation's serial murder is legal? 132.241.245.49 22:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I am saying that what is a crime in one country may not be a crime in another therefore dividing crime categories by country is correct. Dividing crime by sexuality is not correct because crime is not related to sexuality but to violation of laws. Regards Arniep 23:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
murder for pleasure isn't legal in any country. 132.241.245.49 23:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
True, while murder is a crime in every country, dividing the murder category by country serves an organizational purpose. Regards Arniep 23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Care to share sources?

There's already been a request on the Lee Lahey talk page or however it's spelled for a source that he's gay, yet we have not had one cited yet, I notice there seems to be a great amount of controversy on your talk page about adding people to the LGBT category without citing sources? what's the dealio? Can we have a source for Lee? Homestarmy 22:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Im not gonna lie to ya, this looks like an extremely complicated issue, beginning and ending with the apparently highly controversial outing practice. I didn't see a single non-extreme left wing/gay advocacy website call this person gay when I tried googling this guy, it looks like just a massive, spammed effort to discredit this guy, this article might actually benefit from reporting that he's been targeted for probably fake outing, nobody provides any evidence as far as i've looked and I looked a good long time :/. Homestarmy 00:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well...Wikipedia isn't a place to give out grudges in articles....though, in some ways, you've probably helped this article along, now we know he's been targeted and apparently is a relatively obscure figure to everyone except those who want to attack him and his father Tim LaHaye personally or something :/. Homestarmy 01:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack blogs

I have removed your blog-links to Israel Hernandez because they serve no other purpose escept to disparage the subject.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, but those republican blogs aren't a credible/useful source of information, they are attack pages, so I have removed them, and it should stay that way.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Wayne Gacy

It is debatable whether Gacy was bisexual. He may well have said he was but it doesn't seem that he ever had voluntary sexual relations with someone of the same sex and his primary drive was pleasure in murder not sex. Arniep 23:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO If men give you wood you aren't hetero.
It seems that he was unable to be aroused unless violence or the death of the sexual partner was involved. That is not normal bisexuality. Arniep 00:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
In all fairness I'm pretty sure there are hetero's out there that are the same way.
That is why we do not have a heterosexual serial killers category. Arniep 00:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --MasTer of Puppets Peek! 01:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. --MasTer of Puppets Peek! 01:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in retrospect, it isn't really vandalism... just the way you put it. Sorry, but try to explain in full next time. --MasTer of Puppets Peek! 01:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Though it does say "Convicted Sex Offenders"; I think that gets the point across. --MasTer of Puppets Peek! 01:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koresh

RE: David Koresh, and likely others

Adding material like this in a serial manner is more than vandalism. It's trolling. You're not going to be adding them long if you keep it up. --DanielCD 01:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

People put a lot of time and effort sorting out who does and doesn't belong in these categories. I'm looking through your edit history now and seeing a lot of stuff just slapped into articles. I'm going to have to insist it stop. Please don't add any more sexuality/abuse categories to anything until you can make your motives clear or show a little more tact in discussing it beforehand. --DanielCD 01:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. I'm not debating with you about what does and doesn't belong. I'm just telling you to stop slapping the categories all over the place. You need to leave a note on the talk page and wait a day or two for reponse with material like this. As far as the criminals go, many had psychoses/anti-social personality conflicts that may be more important than the sex of their victims. Many historical figures lived before there were conceptions given to some of these things. There's more here than just looks on the surface. --DanielCD 01:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Strike three. One more and you are out of here. --DanielCD 01:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to politely ask one last time that you desist adding nonsense to my talk page, and to comply with my request that you add no more categories for the time being. --DanielCD 01:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing. Adding categories after requested to stop; harassing messages on user pages; then blatant vandalism. Feel free to ask for a review of this action from any administrator. --DanielCD 02:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Page re-protected against vandalism by user. --DanielCD 18:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Jones

Apparently, people are not listed as being gay unless they confess to it. eg, Dawn Fraser admitted to a gay affair, but does not regard herself as such. She is not listed as gay on her article.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't be gung-ho about labelling people as such, against their own declarations.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

It might not have been your intent, but you recently removed content from Woodrow Wilson. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. PJM 18:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubai Ports Controversy

Discuss it on the talk page and see what others think if you want it in the article. --Pilotguy (talk ¦ ✉) 23:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Leader

Do you honestly believe these types of edits are appropriate? Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 02:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Nichols

Did he like guns? shit yeah. Did he like taxes? Hell no. Did he hate collectivism? Damn straight. Would he argue that it was the right of a property owner to plant land mines on his front lawn in a urban neightborhood if he wanted to? Yes. Ergo he was a libertarian. 132.241.245.49 03:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can support, with references, Nichols position on all of these issues I would certainly agree with you. Image:Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman(talk) 03:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to the Vietnam War

The link you inserted appeared to be non-notable, so I removed it.... BUT, since you appear to be a legitimate editor, and I have jumped down your thorat before, I am not going to warn you and will allow you to re-insert it at your leisure. Be aware it may be against wikipedia policy. Take care bud! --Pilotguy (talk ¦ ✉) 01:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blog link?

What's the deal with you link to a blog on the Cindy Sheehan related article? And also, why haven't you gotten an account? --Dunlevyd 04:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)