Misplaced Pages

User:L.Wadsworth

Hi LaraLove, I see you have lifted the block on the above user. This - Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/L.Wadsworth - wasn't on his talk page, so there was no way for you to know but would you reconsider your decision in the light of this information? If not, thats fine too. Cheers, Mattinbgn\ 03:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see where he edited after he was warned, even with the IP. If he reverts again, by all means reblock. Otherwise, I don't think it's justified. Lara❤Love 03:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks anyway. -- Mattinbgn\ 03:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

While the last warnings were issued after he had breached WP:3RR, L. Wadsworth has previously been given three 3RR warnings, The most recent of these, was given only a few hours before he breached 3RR. While that warning may have been in relation to his edits at Australia, the simple fact is that he was aware of the existence of 3RR and the consequences of breaking it. Knowing the consequences he logged out, breached 3RR using an anonymous IP and then immediatly logged back in so he could post a misleading statement on another editor's talk page. There appears to be clear intent in his actions. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Has there been a problem again? Has he even been online? Blocks are not punitive. If there is another occurrence or he reverts again, then reblock him. Not before. Lara❤Love 22:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

Thanks for creating the account. *huggles* Huggle (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha. You're welcome. Lara❤Love 15:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Danaullman

Can you have a quick talk with him, as you're his mentor? He's been adding some stuff to Ludwig van Beethoven and other articles that's basically a coatrack for trying to advocate homeopathy. Thanks! Adam Cuerden 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Adam. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he made a single edit to the article a week and a half ago. It was reverted and he appropriately went to the talk page where he came to a resolution with the article custodians. The last talk page message was on the 11th. It's been moot for more than a week. Am I seeing this edit history inaccurately? His additions were also informative and, although they mentioned Homeopathy, it didn't read like advocacy to me. I think the resolution for a separate article is a good one. Perhaps some people should calm down at the mere sight of the word "Homeopathy", and stop stalking Dana's contributions. Lara❤Love 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he did write an entire book claiming that because people used homeopathy in the past, it must be good. Adam Cuerden 21:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Did he really? Is that what the book is about? Really? He's written several books. He's the leading spokesman for Homeopathy in the United States. This is known. Obviously he holds a different position on the matter than you and some others here. However, this is an encyclopedia. We represent all views. So his position in his field doesn't mean that every edit he makes is against a policy. How about you work on your articles, stay off his Special:Contributions page and when he makes an edit to an article for which you are a custodian, actually read it before reverting it and consider rewriting rather than removing. Most of the additions I've seen him make to articles are informative. They're always backed by sources. Some, perhaps, could benefit from rewording, but they are instead always deleted. Consider, also, the fact that he remains cool in talk page discussions despite the fact that literally almost every edit he makes to the mainspace is reverted.

With that in mind, what exactly did you want me to talk to him about again? Lara❤Love 22:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You got publicity!

...here in Britain! On a radio station in the Midlands here in the United Kingdom, your userpage was mentioned on a local radio station, described as "better than a MySpace one!"

What do you think of that?? --Solumeiras 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit! Hahaa... that's awesome! XD Thanks for telling me! Is there anyway I can get a clip of that? Lara❤Love 19:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

i woke up

and my userpage is broken. im gonna nap. the_undertow 19:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you go to work today? Lara❤Love 19:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. You were using a userbox that has been nominated for Miscellany for deletion and they forgot to put the <noinclude> tag --Antonio Lopez 23:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha!

This page is a laugh, and I love the gif with you, The undertow, and Dfrg.msc as well. :) Hilarious! Acalamari 19:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. the_undertow made the gif. XD Lara❤Love 19:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Elvis

Thanks for your reply, Lara. The answer to your question is that Elvis was primarily a Christian/Gospel/church singer. He wasn't a "Blues" singer for the simple reason that he disliked the blues, but he'd do it if he had to. Those of us old enough to have attended his concerts know this. You, being a young girl, do not know this. It's the ignorance of youth. Not necessarily a bad thing unless it's accompanied by a closed mind. And it's most unpleasant when ignorant youth try to make a new "truth" out of cobbled-up fiction. The entire Elvis article has become a nightmare of fiction, but you're doing an excellent job of defending it. Soon you all will have remade Elvis into a repressed, gay, punk blues, atheistic, draft-dodging, womanizing biker. Well done! Hoserjoe (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)