Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:23, 30 June 2005

Welcome

Welcome!

Hi Noitall! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

Personal note: Excellent job on Michael Steele's biography. However, as I have seen new users post copyrighted material many times before, are you sure this is not copyrighted somewhere? Did you type this up yourself, or did you copy/paste from somewhere? No offense, but Steele is rather obscure in the grand scheme of Misplaced Pages, thus having such a long bio is rather unexpected in my opinion.

I also enjoy working with Maryland politician pages (I've created most of the Maryland Governor and U.S. Senator pages) so I'm sure we'll run into each other from time to time.

Also, be sure to cite your sources. You posted a rather long article in regards to Steele, and I'm fairly certain you did not write that from memory, so please cite your sources (add a ==Sources== subheading at the end of an article and bullet them).

Again, welcome, and keep up the good work (if it isn't copyrighted ;) ). --tomf688 15:14, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

68.239.64.111

I speak only the truth. But I'll oblige you. -68.239.64.111

Neoconservatism

It would help enormously to know what edit you are complaining about. Would you please go into the history of the article, do a diff on the edit of mine you are complaining about, and give me the URL so I can tell what you are objecting to? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:59, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Clearly what I did there is not vandalism. You may disagree with my edit, but it is on a substantive matter and my edit summary gives a clear reason for the edit. I see you brought up the matter on the talk page of the article, and at least one other person agrees with me. I'd prefer to continue the discussion there, rather than on our user talk pages, since it makes the matter far more visible to other editors of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:22, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
• No, actually, if you will look, in both cases I specifically avoided an edit war by letting the other person's edit stand, even though I disagreed with it, and called for others to please take a look. In the present case, you seem to be a minority of one, with three of us disagreeing with you, so I don't see any need to seek other opinions: the consensus seems quite clear, and you are the one bucking it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:02, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

"NeoCon" comes across to me as a dirty word....used to describe someone who is not well liked. If General Patton were alive today and strutting his stuff, would he be called a NeoCon? or a Patriot? Just curious.....Ariele 16:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

3 revert rule

You have just reverted Islamist terrorism for the 4th time. Your comment on your 3rd revert indicates your awareness of the 3 revert rule. You are therefore blocked from editing for 24 hours. You are welcome to resume the discussion once this is over. - Mustafaa 02:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for Assistance: ADMINISTRATOR ABUSE: Administrator Mustafaa is a Wiki Terrorist

Asking for assistance regarding Administrator Mustafaa:

Regarding the page and edits to Islamic Terrorism, Administrator Mustafaa acts as the police to this page to ensure that his biased POV is inserted. He was called in by Yuber to revert my edit, which was balanced, an improvement, and entirely without a POV (as are all my edits). They worked to team up to ensure that only their biased POV is inserted. Mustafaa then blocked me, in the process breaking many Wiki policies. Basically Mustafaa ‘s reactionary vandalism and his act of blocking me was an act of Wiki terrorisim.

Administrator Mustafaa broke many of Wiki policies:

1. Abuse of Administratorship: Most important is that Mustafaa has an obvious POV and abuses his Administratorship to ensure that his POV is inserted into his favorite articles.

2. Edit Abuse: Mustafaa (and Yuber) made a reactionary rv revert of the entire article instead of simply making one simple correction, the only correction that they disagreed with.

3. Edit Abuse: Unlike what they stated, there has been no previous discussion of this issue. The only previous discussion concerned their own sensitivity to the term. The term “Islamic Terrorism” is the term used by the West and it is the term being described. I provided a source (and there would be tens of thousands of sources, because this is the proper term in the West. I accurately described the dispute that some Muslims have over a term used in the West.

4. Violating blocking Policy: Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute, and self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict.

5. Violating blocking Policy: logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block should not be blocked.

6. Violating blocking Policy: the 3RR policy is not to be used to deal with vandalism as mine was of Mustafaa and Yuber vandalism.

7. Violating blocking Policy: Mustafaa made no warnings, he just wanted to protect his POV.

I believe that I have made significant contributions to Wiki and I very greatly object to 2 people teaming up to block me out of the system so that they can insert their POV.

These people are doing a real disservice to Wiki, and I can think of no worse vandalism than they have done:

I think Administrators like Mustafaa are dangerous for Wiki, especially when they are so willing to violate Wiki policy to insert their POV.

So, I would appreciate any information and assistance you can provide to Noitall. Thank you.

--Noitall 03:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

You clearly violated the 3RR, and now you are moving the page without even going to talk.Yuber 03:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Referring to someone called Mustafaa as a "terrorist", while amusingly hyperbolic, seems rather Islamophobic. --Irishpunktom\ 11:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

A word of advice

Noitall, you posted the above matter to User talk:Mustafaa, User talk:Noitall, User talk:Davidcannon, User talk:SlimVirgin, User talk:Sam Spade, User talk:Jayjg and Misplaced Pages:AMA Member Statements. You should seriously reconsider if you really want to post this in so much talk pages. It looks like like an attempt at blackening another editor, and such things tend to reflect pretty bad on you. The place to go if you are worried about administrator abuse is Requests for Comment, but talking calmly about it with the editor in question is not a bad thing to try first. — mark ✎ 07:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This was not simply an edit war (although that is what started it), they teamed up to BLOCK ME, basically kick me off Wiki, for the sole reason that they are monitoring a page on Islamic Terrorism to insert their POV. I believe that there is more to it. On your suggestions:

1. The editor did not let me talk it over with them. They immediately blocked me. There was no discussion and no talk.

2. I believe that this is the worst abuse, based on all the preceding violations and with very bad motivation, that you could possibly have.

3. I have found edit wars on Wiki, but I have not found this particular event -- teaming up to immediately block and terrorize a person attempting to do a simple and (not controversial) edit because they have a religious POV.

4. I have not yet had any assistance.

--Noitall 12:40, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

You must cease immediately from refering to other editors as "terrorists." You must ensure that you adhere to No Personal Attacks policy. If you feel there was an administrative abuse, the channel to turn to and issue such a complaint is Use_of administrator privileges, not copying and pasting a lengthy message on user's talk pages, which is generally viewed as a discourteous pratice. Thanks. El_C 12:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you paid any attention to the merits here and the harm to Wiki El_C, you would not be stating such things to me and instead resolving problems elsewhere. ---Noitall 13:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Chill Man, if it was a 3RR block, then it was only a 24 hour Block - Thats happened to the best of them (and worst of us). Fact is, you can't make sweeping changes to articles, especially on points which have been bashed out over time, without expecting people to revert it back. --Irishpunktom\ 13:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your attitude Irishpunktom and note that I have specifically refused to NOT get in an edit war before, see Category talk:Irregular military. In this case, I made a 64 word change and they objected to 1 word of it, and did a reactionary revert. The issue was never addressed before on any talk page. And finally, I bring up an issue that I do not believe has been addressed on Wiki before: teaming up to insert a POV and block someone out of Wiki. --Noitall 13:34, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

OK, Noittal, let's see what I can make out of it. First, the one word you're talking about was your Islamic vs. the Islamist of the article, an issue which had been discussed extensively before (please read all of Talk:Islamist terrorism). Did you notice that? Secondly, I don't know what you mean by a 'reactionary revert' — what I see in the edit history is a revert by Yuber, accompanied with the following explanation: RV, this has been discussed in talk, islamist was the consensus. Now, a revert is a slap in the face, as they say, and maybe Yuber could've handled this more carefully. I note however that he immediately thereafter posted a clarification on the Talk page. However, instead of consulting the talk page and maybe questioning the outcome of the previous debate, you responded to his revert by a counter-revert, saying get your POV off here, the edit is accurate and improves the article. This ensued an edit war between you and Yuber. What worries me most, is that you went to the Talk page only after your third revert. There, you started of with a personal attack: "As in many Wiki articles, the primary editors have a POV." Why'd you do that? You didn't talk with any of the editors before.

After the revert warring Mustafaa came on the scene. After reverting your edits, he enforced the block you earned yourself by violating the Three revert rule. That was maybe not the wisest thing to do, as he had involved himself in the dispute (however slightly). However, your calling Mustafaa a 'wiki terrorist' and your massive spamming of personal attacks was totally uncalled for. Really, you've picked the wrong one to pick your particular bone with — you should read Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Mustafaa for a start to see what others think about him.

Quite frankly, to me it seems that you should take some time to calm down, because you've been making a mountain out of a molehill. Worse, you've been piling up a load of personal attacks. Please stop suggesting that there is an Islamist conspiracy against you or against NPOV. Try to talk first, consult 3RR, No personal attacks and maybe read something about Wikilove. — mark ✎ 15:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

mark, you are remarkably adept at writing quite a bit while missing the entire issue. What relevance is it that an Administrator had some support 6 months ago when just now the editor violated all of the Wiki policies? The most I have been accused of is not sufficiently supporting "Wikilove" for an Administrator who blocked me in violation of Wiki policy. I am accusing Administrator Mustaffa of serious Wiki violations. And the issue was not discussed at all -- just because there is a topic heading with a particular name does not mean that the issue was discussed. It only began discussion AFTER I was blocked and made my complaint. Your long statement missed the entire point (actually all 10 of them that I have made), but I will be willing to discuss anything if you can rationally and thoughtfully think through the problem and issues.

--Noitall 16:00, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bye, Noitall. I've got other things to do than being offended by you. I'm sorry for not being patient enough, but I'm off now. — mark ✎ 16:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, Mark's point is very simple: you cannot revert an article more than 3 times -- for any reason. That is Misplaced Pages policy, & is not subject to exceptions; as one Wikipedian describes it, it is an "electric fence" that no one is allowed to cross. By my count on the History page of Islamist terrorism, you did it four times, not counting your original edit. Yuber made only 3 edits; Mustafaa made only 2.

Further, your description of his edits cannot be considered "vandalism". There is a carefully thought-out definition of vandalism here, which includes several explanations what vandalism is not which covers to what Mustafaa did -- & also what you did.

I don't know what is the cause of this dispute, & I honestly don't care. Mustafaa made a faux pas, minor mistake, when he banned you. However, your current behavior to post your rant against him on several User Talk pages (some of whom I don't see how are involved in this dispute) is far more serious. I pointed you to the proper steps for settling disputes amiably & successfully; contributors who follow these steps, as tedious as they are, show that they respect Misplaced Pages & build good faith with the rest of the community, & you will accomplish something. As Mark wrote above, you need to take a chill pill & think of a better way to make your point. Consider the following as a friendly piece of advice: ranting about how someone else on Misplaced Pages is being "unfair" only serves to alienate people who might agree with you -- or help you in this.

If you honestly feel that you are being "ganged-up on", contact the Association of Member Advocates. -- llywrch 20:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

llywrch, I accept the fact that you can accurately count. But you have not addressed a single fact in my complaint. Your statement about the "electric fence" is also inaccurate, according to what is written as to Wiki policy. On the one hand, you complain that I made my complaint too many times (without addressing a single issue), and on the other you want me to make it one more time if I "honestly feel that you are being "ganged-up on"". I think I made my compaint enough times, and will wait for someone to address the issues. I don't have some grand Wiki designs, only to make it better. If others do not care about this serious problem, well, it is a little like hating Bush and not voting in the election--it only harms Wiki.

--Noitall 20:52, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Beginning of Edit War: Yuber to Mustaffa

You asked for what started this. I wandered into the article Islamist terrorism with the goal of accuracy and simply improving it but without knowing the militant people that police articles such as that one. Then Yuber and Mustaffa took over. I will post what many other editors have recently complained about regarding the same type of issue, but issues that I was not involved in and did not even learn about until recently. The complaints speak for themselves:

Statement by

Yuber is a vicious POV pusher. He has been constantly warned by administrators and other editors that he is showing bad faith by not cooperating with others. Articles have been locked numerous times because of his tendency to ignore the 3RR rule and start revert wars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/Jizya) (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Palestinian_territories&action=history)http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Golan_Heights&action=history] (http://en.wikipedia.org/Arab_Israeli_conflict) Every chance has been given to Yuber to stop his militant pov pushing. POV pushing was not as much a concern for me and other editors, as for the fact that he fails to cooperate with other editors (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Arab-Israeli_conflict) (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Jizya#Protected). Evidence of his intrasingence has been recorded on his . Jayjg, SlimVirgin and Humus sapiens can testify to his inability to cooperate.

Many members have tried to cooperate with him, but the leniency editors have been giving to him is over. He has not changed his militant pov pushing, he does not cooperate, he initiates revert wars constantly instead of the talk page, even over single words and after repeated warnings of its POV content. He has shown deliberate disregard to wikipedia rules. It seems that his sole purpose is to turn specific articles relating to his agenda into a giant soapbox for his viewpoint. He should be banned from editing in Middle Eastern related articles, either permanently or for a limited amount of time as a warning. Blocking him for his numerous 3RR violations has had no effect and I am afraid unless he is disciplined for his violations, no amount of reasoning will help in the future.

Statement by

I urge the ArbCom to take up the case of Yuber. He has been vandalizing my user page repeatedly despite being repeatedly told to stop. He is responsible for the locking of the Dhimmi article on Misplaced Pages. Numerous editors have run into his POV-pushing and revert-warring; indeed he seems to feel that any article related to Islam is his to "defend" no matter what factual information is brought forth.

Yuber is in the middle of starting another revert war right now over at Saudi Arabia.

This cannot be allowed to continue. Though I fear it goes beyond Yuber himself, there are a few other editors (Mustafaa and come to mind) who regularly act in concert with Yuber, including sending messages to each other to coordinate in revert wars on these articles.

Statement by

• Yuber claims consensus when there is none:
• Yuber inserts an entire article into another to prove a point:
• Yuber's edit squarely blames Israel in an article describing Muhammad_al-Durrah's murder controversy. His comment: "I try to NPOV articles":
• Yuber attempts to justify suicide bombings, removes well-sourced statements that contradict his POV: .

Yuber vandalizing again

You may want to take a look here, Yuber has been repeatedly vandalizing a user page involved in the Request for Arbitration you list above.

Vandalism by Yuber

Yuber gets an award: The editor has started his one millionth edit war! Yuber only knows how to insert his POV in articles, and only by reverting. Even worse, Yuber vandalizes pages, even User pages, see ]. Many others have cited Yuber and there is an effort from many others to ban the editor from Wiki, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. --Noitall 23:27, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration against Yuber

Thank you for your support, but it would help if you also supported your claims with links to his vandalism. It would make matters easier in having him brought up in the arb comm. Who do you think are his "sockpuppets?"

Thanks again,

Guy Montag 00:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've picked up a great deal in a very short time!

Peace --

I'm impressed! Congratulations on what has obviously been a very quick ramp-up to WP.

Hoping to get some help from you on the Spiro Agnew article. With your background in Maryland politics, I thought perhaps you might be able to shed some light on how he came to Nixon's attention in the first place? He was, if I recall correctly, among the last person anyone imagined Nixon would select as a running mate in 1968. Thoughts? BrandonYusufToropov 19:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you BrandonYusufToropov. And peace be with you too. I gave it a shot on Spiro Agnew, but there is more work to do about the convention and why Nixon picked him. As only a guess, maybe it was a birds of a feather syndrome -- both highly skilled politicians who were ethically challenged and somewhat politically arrogant to abuse power so blatently. But they may have had very different personalities as I understand Nixon to be sort of cold while Agnew may have been outgoiing. --Noitall 06:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Suicide bombing

Hi Noitall, it's unlocked now. Happy editing. SlimVirgin 14:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

revert war brewing on suicide bombing

I would like to work on this article, but I don't want to put time into adding material if it's just going to be reverted without question or discussion. I'm going to attempt to re-word some of the controversial sections, and I would appreciate it if people could edit without revert. Please read the changes, they will be quite small.

Ishmael

I do not appreciate your continual personal attacks against me, and you say that you do not hold a grudge against me although I can see that isn't the truth. There are now other editors at that page if you wish to deal with them. Also, I'd like to point out that I never reverted your edits, but rather added back a part in about all three religions viewing him as the ancestor of the Arabs.Yuber 03:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abraham

Noitall, I acted on your 3RR report. Would you mind taking a look at the way I wrote up the diffs here Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Yuber? That's the way they need to be done in future. Cheers, SlimVirgin 11:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Debate Misplaced Pages policy in other ways

Your addition of the categories Category:Pro-1st Amendment, Category:Pro-Family, Category:Pro-U.S. Constitution, Category:Pro-Marriage are out of line and unnecessary. If you have a problem with a certain category, which in this case you seem to feel is left-wing, adding four right-wing categories to make a statement is not the appropriate action to take, and you should instead utilize Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion.

I will again be reverting the pages. If you revert again, I will be disappointed that you feel this is the only way you can get your message across.

You also need to actually make an entry on the Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion page regarding your belief that Category:LGBT rights opposition should be deleted. I personally agree that that category seems POV, but you need to make an entry first. --tomf688 02:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Tom, there are many ways of getting a point across, I made mine my way. I was very clear in the subjects I edited that they were 2 side of the same coin, all POV. Before I took action, I did not see you or anyone else opposing an intentionally POV article. BTW, if you don't see a LGBT rights opposition as left wing, then that is exactly why I created the categories: to open up some closed minds. In any event, I always appreciate assistance with Wiki procedures.

--Noitall 03:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't actually notice the edit before you added your categories, but tbh I probably wouldn't have reverted it simply because it didn't really seem all that bad (probably in the way the category was entitled).

Furthermore, don't think of me as closed-minded towards the right. I lean right myself; hell, I even voted for Bush the last election (Steele '06? ;) ). --tomf688 03:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I created your category deletion request. You can edit it here to give your reasoning for why you want it deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_19&action=edit&section=2 --tomf688 04:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. BTW, my political interests are in the two-party system, and when one party gets far too dominant, then the system needs to be brought into balance with the goal of competition for the public vote. As for Michael Steele, I think that having the first competitive Senate race in my lifetime is a good thing. I also can't stand hypocracy, such as in this case, when obviously POV categories are listed so that all opponents on a political issue can be lumped together. It is also lazy, since the appropriate thing is to accurately describe the person's views in the article. Good chatting. --Noitall 16:22, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Re:Cardin family connections

I think the section has plenty of good information in it, but perhaps it should be placed towards the bottom of the article beneath education and honors (since the article is about Ben Cardin, foremost). I also feel the article should probably include a bit more information on his earlier life.

Good lengthening, though. Any chance you will work on the other Maryland Representative articles? ;) --tomf688 23:09, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

categories

I left a few replies on the page. There are two things I want you to consider.

First, unfortunately, there was an edit conflict between one of your edits and mine. I think I resolved everything, but I didn't want you to think I was hiding something when you saw an edit like this one, which modified your writing. I apologize for any inconvenience this caused.

I would advise you to back down on this issue. You're starting to move into the realm of personal attacks, and your disruption of wikipedia to make a point is becoming less and less relevant as the "rename" option gains strength. I may ask an admin for comment if this keeps up much longer. I've tried to be reasonable, and I've supported name changes even though I think they're only minor POV violations. There are more important things to do than worry about these category names.

Dave (talk) 03:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ishmael

Please stop adding false information. It is according to the Old Testament of the Bible that those are Ishmael's twelve sons. I will keep reverting your false changes if you add stuff like that. Here's the source.Yuber 17:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Old Testament

Was "No, I have said many times here that I am only editing the Christian parts and anyone else can edit the other parts, I donot presume to speak for all on this religious topi" meant to be an answer to my question "Noitall, is it possible that you aren't aware that the Torah _is_ the first five books of the OT? Or do you just object to including the Christian name for it?" I assume not, and would like an answer. I can only hope it's not really the former - and that you don't "presume", as your suggested division of labour would seem to indicate, that being a Christian automatically gives you more knowledge of Christianity than any non-Christian. - Mustafaa 23:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please, I don't know how much simpler I can make it. No, the statement you keep trying to insert is inaccurate with regard to the Old Testament. That is why I changed it. I change things to make them better, which usually means more accurate or less POV. What I keep telling you is that it could also be inaccurate for the Torah or Koran, but I am not going to change it. I have knowledge in the areas I choose to research and have knowledge, and that for the purposes of this edit, it is Christianity. --Noitall 23:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm afraid you've confirmed my worst suspicions. The Torah is the first five books of the Old Testament, no more, no less. Now what do you claim is inaccurate about this? - Mustafaa 00:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Mustafaa, please don't go down the User:Yuber rat hole that you went down once before. You are suspicious because you have a POV that you are trying to insert in Muslim-related articles and someone (me) is slightly SLIGHTLY limiting your POV. For the 10th time, I am not editing with regard to the Torah or Koran. So I have no idea what argument that you are trying to stir up. MY suspician is that, as usual, you are extraordinarily confused. My point on accuracy was that the Old Testament did not state the POV that you are trying to insert. --00:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

The Old Testament is the same thing as the Torah, and does indeed say that Ishmael, father of the Ishmaelites, was Abraham's son. See Talk:Abraham. If you choose not to believe the Bible, that's your own affair; we still have to report its contents. - Mustafaa 01:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your ignorance and your gall are amazing! I can't imagine going on the Islam page or interpreting any Muslim section of any page simply because I found a couple of sources, that are both inaccurate and taken out of context, but that state my POV. You and User:Yuber would revert my edit as fast as a Wiki bomb. Now take your POV off my talk page. --Noitall 01:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yuber on Jihad

You may strongly want to take a look at Jihad. Yuber is up to his old tricks.Enviroknot 23:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Afrocentricity revert

I reverted an addition you made to Afrocentricity because the central claim of Afrocentric scholars regarding Egypt is that the cultural practices (language, spiritual systems, political systems, patterns of lineage) that make Egypt unique do not emanate from outside of the African continent. There is significant reason though to conclude that at least some of their cultural practices came from Nubia to the South (the work of Bruce Williams at the University of Chicago is important here). While there are probably some Egyptologists who do believe that it makes more sense to talk about Egypt as being outside of Africa, I do not think this position has much merit, nor do I think this position is particularly strong at this moment in history. I am willing to hear a counterargument though. --Lester Spence 06:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Lester. Thank you for providing your rationale. I moved the discussion to the Afrocentricity talk page and will respond there. Thanks. --13:55, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Mitt Romney's School

It was not vandalism. Currently the school is called Cranbrook Kingswood, but at the time he attended it was called Cranbrook. He met his wife while she attended the Kingswood portion (at the time they were separated by gender). I just thought that it was deceptive for it to say that he graduated from Cranbrook Kingswood, when in reality at the time he did not.

Parachutegurl

Mitt Romney's School

I noticed in the discussion on the Mitt Romney page that there was a report for vandalism on the school line. It had the Kingswood part highlighted in red, next to your name on the report for vandalism, that's the reason I contacted you about it.

Parachutegurl 16:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CfD archive

Please refrain from modifying the CfD archive. As stated, "Further comments should be made on the category's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record." Thank you. --Kbdank71 29 June 2005 17:57 (UTC)

It cannot be an archive because you have not recorded it correctly. I do not know your agenda here, but it is not the agenda of what was discussed on the CfD. I will continue to correct the record. --Noitall June 29, 2005 21:27 (UTC)

• It was archived on the 28th as having no consensus. Further attempts to change it will be considered vandalism. Also, you are about to violate the WP:3RR. I strongly suggest you take it to the WP:CFD talk page if you wish to discuss this further. --Kbdank71 30 June 2005 01:40 (UTC)

• Forgive me if you are a new editor, but I assume that if you are messing with an archive you are fairly experienced. If you are experienced, HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE THAT THE ISSUE WAS CLOSED WITH FULL CONSENSUS AND IT IS RIGHT THERE ON WIKI FOR EVERYONE WITH 1/100 OF A BRAIN TO READ. Here is what else anyone can read: Kbdank71 = VANDAL. --Noitall June 30, 2005 02:23 (UTC)