User talk:Kizzle/Archive2

Thanks for the holiday wishes, and Happy New Year to you, but are we still fighting the War on Christmas? I thought our orders were to back-burner that so we could concentrate on weakening America by criticizing Bush.

As for posting a photo, I have no plans to do so anytime soon. In case I'm declared an enemy combatant, I don't want to make it any easier for them to find me. JamesMLane 08:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Woohookitty_sleeps_with_prostitutes. I don't! Honest! LOL. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

We also had User:JoanneB aka The Wikipedia Prostitute and User:Ohmygod!theykilled JoanneB. So apparently, I killed JoanneB. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I put a request up for help on the talk page at WP:SEMI. We have admins using this "% of good edits" criteria. We need to tighten up the policy so that stops. Age of Enlightenment was protected for that reason. If we used that criteria, we'd have hundreds of protected articles. Most edits on many many articles are vandalism. SP isn't meant for that. Your input would be appreciated. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is to invite you to participate in the next game of Wikifun.
Round 12 will begin at 11:00 UTC on Friday January 20. 2006.
-- Ravn 17:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This is to remind you that all contributions to Wikipedia are required to be under a free license, and that includes user pages. User space is not exempt from the database dumps, and commercial mirrors and third parties can and will duplicate the content for their own use.

The claim placed at the top of this page is rendered null and void by the license of the page. When the copyright holder of material submits it to Wikipedia, they licence it under the GFDL. If you do not agree with this, then you are required to remove the material and/or have it deleted as a copyright infringement.

Thanks. Rob Church (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

hey kiz, nice work blowing the liberal cabal cover. you could have at least done a Rot13 to make it a challenge. BD's gonna be all over this one; you've doomed us all ... doooomed i say. james ought to strip your decoder ring for this one. Derex 22:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm famously not a sysop on En. at present. Ask on WP:CP or similar. Rob Church (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm... Derex, he's working hard a constructive project here, a historical documentary of sorts. There is no issue with that. That's generally considered a "good" thing. The issue is the little tag, which I'm sure he'll just remove. So in the future, try to not confuse things like that and be more civil and professional on wikipedia. Thanks. Kevin Baas^talk 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm... Kevin, I can't tell if you're being ironic, or if you've got a stick up your ass. But, if the latter, it was a joke. Maybe not funny, but that comes with the territory of being an uber-geek. I do know what Kizzle is doing. Derex 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ya, Kevin I think its been a long day, Derex was just joking around :) He actually helped me in getting independent study with a professor on my project, which I'm doing now. --kizzle 01:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And who says James is the leader of this cabal? Remember, I won elections last year in a round-robin tournament of ping-pong, therefore I wield all the power in the cabal!! I'll try to forget this transgression when I write my report to the ghost of Mao-Tse Tung. --kizzle 02:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You're all making much too much noise. I'm in the secret cabal's West Coast 'Propaganda and Crunchy Biscuits' Studio, trying to decode the secret subliminal audio that they play behind Lou Dobbs and unlock the mysteries of commodity fetishism. Ssh! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm yeah, but you're in the Zionist cabal. Bow to your master in the liberal cabal. --kizzle 07:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Splitters!" (see Monty Python's Life of Brian) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

i'm about ready to post a pic of pierced one. for the love of god, somebody block me! i've got work to do and serious deadlines, which is why i've been on here all day. i should at least be drinking if i'm going to piss away a whole day. derf's -- de la vina & mission -- many a fine day wasted there. or sleeping on the beach off bren. but i am in fact sitting in a basement office in berkeley procrastinating my ass off, and getting snarky with kevin. and you, you bastard, i see you've gone straight -- almost no posts in three weeks. you'll be back though, i know you're jonesing for a hit. Derex 01:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

All the time you don't see me on here means I'm getting shit done on my project :), also taking some really good poli sci classes, I should have been a poli sci major. As for posting a penis pic, it might not be a good idea as it will give some future dumbass piece of shit troll the perception that they have a license to viciously attack their co-editors. --kizzle 01:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kizzle.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 08:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Dude, my ex-girlfriend took that picture. --kizzle 23:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

An RfC has been opened here against User:Mr j galt (talk · contribs). If you are familar with his editing and would like to add your input, please feel free to do so, whatever your POV. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user/BD777 wannabe is reverting at will. Will Beback and I are trying to deal with him, but any comments/help you might provide would be much appreciated on the Mark Levin page. The Talk page alone resembles a primal scream. Thanks. Eleemosynary 01:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been in Canberra the last 3 weeks. But, thank god, am returning Friday. Will be in SB maybe a week after that. Will give you a call. Probably moving here, ANU made me a sweet offer. - D.

SB looks like early May now; hope you're still around then. My friend ended up coming to visit me instead. Definitely Australia bound now, signed a contract today. Derex 18:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That means alot, thanks.Gator (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Heya! Yeah, I've distanced myself from most "admin" stuff. I'm a mentor on NLP. other than that, just lots of cleanup work. Going back to a "janitor" type role. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thumb — How about a yummy chocolate **Milkshake**

I'm a pretty cheap date. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

K, next time I'm in your hood :). --kizzle 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, kizzle, you can't possibly be a First Lieutenant in the Liberal Cabal. We don't use such reactionary ranks. According to my Cabal records, you're a Deputy Commissar and a full voting member of the Politburo. You've also been awarded the Hero of the Working Class medal for your gallantry in the fights against Rex and BigDaddy.

Well, that is to say, you would hold those distinctions in the Liberal Cabal if there actually were a Liberal Cabal. Which there isn't. Nope, no such thing. Never has been. JamesMLane t c 08:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

2nd rule of Liberal Cabal: There is no Liberal Cabal. Got it. I'm sure I'll see you on talk page once it gets closer to election time when shit goes down :) --kizzle 08:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Come vote here please to decide this important matter! i trust that you'll make the right decision--Rictonilpog 17:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In light of recent sockpuppeting by Rex071404 (talk · contribs) a/k/a/ Merecat (talk · contribs) to violate the permanent ban on his editing of John Kerry, I've requested the fourth and most recent 'Rex' RfAr be reopened and if appropriate, the remedies re-defined and re-applied. As a prior petitioner of that RfAr, I'm notifying you here. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey not to get involved or anything I don't think that bagering Merecat about being a sockpuppet will get you an answer to your question. I would just leave him alone and let the ArbCom handle it. If he is Rex071404 then they will handle it if he is not then oh well.....but it just doesn't help the issue if you keep on about it. Aeon 21:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It mostly comes from frustration Aeon, if it is Rex, take a look at Rex's talk page where the second to last post he made was to post an IRC conversation i had with him that was rather pleasant, there was no reason to come back as another person since he's only banned from editing John Kerry. If Merecat isn't Rex it only takes .5 seconds to respond. If he is than he should have the courtesy to let everyone know rather than ignore his co-editors request. But thank you for your noble intentions anyways :) --kizzle 21:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand... but I still don't think your ever going to get an answer...Aeon 23:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That will be all the answer that is needed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

According to my research, you are quite likely a sockpuppet of Rex/Merecat. After your master (Rex) claimed today that he had an admin account, I did search on various peculiarities of Rex's phrasing. The most common hits were Rex, Merecat, and Kizzle — you're busted. Very clever, a 5th column inside the very heart of the liberal cabal.

In perusing those old talk pages, I have also concluded that you, in your Rex guise, are actually a decently capable debater. Your problem is that you never, ever gave an inch, no matter what the evidence against you. Otherwise, you would have been a pretty decent editor. I assume you'll be resigning this account too, now that your cover is blown.

P.S. Did you actually join up? I'd be impressed, but I'm a bit skeptical. Derex 03:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bravo, Derex, Bravo. Kizzle was actually the name of my other ferret. I used Kizzle to promote the subconscious liberal agenda deeply encapsulated through layers and layers of conservativism forced upon me by my lack of social contact due to homeschooling and growing up the Texas. This will indeed be my last edit, as since the game is up and my claims have been proven to be "patently false", I will wash myself of this place forever. --kizzle 04:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It makes me sad that you're in the life situation that would drive you to conduct this kind of troll campaign. I hope you find happiness and peace in your life. And I hope you don't continue to impede the editing of these articles - nor continue to be involved in the lives of the people you deceived. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Not funny, guys. Not funny at all. I'm really not laughing. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that seemed mighty fishy. :) Besides. Kizzle really is a conservative. ;-) --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that's blasphemy!--kizzle 05:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just hope no one finds out that I have a ferret named "Jimbo". JamesMLane t c 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle, you are a piece of work. I'm very gratified you're apparently not an amoral and pathological sockmeister. Amoral, perhaps, pathological certainly - but not a sockmeister. Big relief. :) Be well kizz. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 11:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Presumably to Rex's great amusement, I've now spent about 5 hours trying to check his admin claim. While not exhaustive, I'd say my efforts have been reasonably thorough. ~~Besides Kizzle~~ I didn't find any obvious candidates. There's a couple very weak possiblities, that I'll keep an eye on. But, my best guess is that he made it up to be annoying. I don't think Rex is the sort to try to cause real harm anyway; he has a human side, distinctly missing from the likes of BD777. My guess is that Rex will shortly be joining us under a new name, hopefully that will work out better for all involved. As a sidenote, an astounding proportion (perhaps 75%) of admins appointed since 2004 have edited in the past week.

If any admins read this, you might want to block his admitted socks on his goodbye note. Derex 07:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This is hilarious. Good thing I actually read Ryan's user page from time to time, or I would have missed out on this altogether. That said, I'm curious (but too lazy to check) - aren't you guys (as in Derex, Ryan, Kizzle and James) admins? If not, there's something terribly wrong in the world. Guettarda 21:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, we're the renegade faction of Wikipedia. Down with the man. Besides, all admin functions would do is make me feel bad I'm not reverting some vandalism somewhere and/or checking the administrator's noticeboard to block some dumbass who feels that Hitler's article is too anti-Nazi. But thanks for the vote of confidence :) --kizzle 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You have too finely developed a sense of responsibility. For example, it doesn't bother my conscience in the least to ignore Derex's request to block Rex's socks (ok, just a little bit). I just want power, not responsibility. There are always lots of newbie admins who are thrilled with the chance to block someone or use rollback. I must admit that it's fun to have the block button there - when you look at your watchlist and have [block] next to everyone's name...and let the cursor hover over the name of a person who's annoying you :) Guettarda 22:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that it's not more bureaucrats and administrators, nor more of this distressing unilateralism, that Wikipedia needs. What Wikipedia needs are strong, factual, bold editors. I'm happy to continue to act as an editor - but very, very troubled by the lack of objectivity and neutrality I'm seeing in the process of this RfAr (my first). I feel like Wikipedia, a great social experiment, is suffering the fate of most human organizations - to be ultimately coopted by pettiness and the power-hungry, and rejected by those it was created to serve (the READER). I guess I'm the complete opposite - I don't want power, I want responsibility... in myself as well as in others. And you can't administrate that. Disagree with me and it's RfC city, buster. You're goin' down. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the perfect arrangement - you can have the responsibility, I'll take the power, and together we can take over the world and rule as a triumvirate (hmmm...is that an Obelix and Asterix reference? I can't recall). But seriously - while RFAr is a flawed process, and usually is unsatisfactory, it tends to be less unfair than the alternatives (like RFC, which is easy to rig, or RfM, which never gets anywhere). On the other hand, like in any organisation, power ends up in the hands of groups, and the group members tend to support one-another. I don't think the case should have been accepted, but the resulting non-decision is probably pretty reasonable. Phil has misbehaved, but not enough to warrant serious punishment. I'm not sure how article probation really works, but it doesn't sound too ominous. At the same time, the arbcomm has pretty much said to Phil that he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He can't threaten arbitration any more. His bluff has been called. So, while it was a supreme waste of people's time, it may not really be so bad that it was accepted (assuming that no new remedies come up). Guettarda 22:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No one knows how it works, 'cause Fred invented it solely for this case. IMHO, pretty sketchy stuff from an Arbitrator asked to recuse on the basis of expressed bias - to say nothing of the troubling irony of ArbComm potentially ignoring and therefore permitting such an irregular process taken in an RfAr dealing with electoral irregularities. Responsibility would dictate a stronger, not weaker, adherence to process. We'll see if the little gems of subtext that Fred came up with in his 'findings' ( 'Phil has adequately proven his case', 'Ryan and Noosphere have defended the article from valid edits', and 'Kevin Baas seeks to push POV whatever the policy' are shown to be false. I'm frankly doubtful, since the mountain of clear evidence brought to date has done nothing to encourage any other course of action on Fred's part. Worst of all, after single-handedly populating the case with findings, the only 'abstention' Fred has seen fit to make is on the 'remedy/finding' regarding mediation - even though he specifically stated elsewhere that he thought it would be a good idea. He couldn't 'support' that remedy for some reason, but had no problem declaring Kevin's POV and assigning an air of 'collusion' to Noosphere and I. All of this seems highly suspect and a conflict of interest and unfairly biased towards Phil, an administrator for whom Fred already publically expressed specific support on this issue despite his failure to provide evidence of prior attempts at mediation, etc. This whole exercise, the most distateful of my 1.5 year Wikipedia career, is a classic example of the problem of group organization... groups and individuals granted power are almost always loath to surrender ANY of that power (like, for example, a request for recusal), as they see it as a loss of 'status' for the group or the individual. It is, in fact, the opposite. Recusing one's self and seeing one's POV vindicated is a far greater endorsement than bulldozing your POV through a process at the expense of good faith and good editors. Blech. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Or I'll whoop you. Thanks for that Valkyrie. Love you too, Kizz. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I assume you saw the (ahem) not-so-hidden 'BOOGER' in Rex's goodbye missive, eh?

Did you pick it out?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Code 2: Rex's Revenge. What was his obsession with boogers and you? sheesh. --kizzle 01:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Was there a nasally-related incident involving me and the 'formerly known as Rex' previously? And I hope you got the pun. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh - that was Wolfstar... calling me a snot, etc. etc. Interesting parallel... one for Derex' linguistic analyzer program. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Very punny, when he vandalized your user page with an image of some guy picking his nose, not to mention Wolfstar who could have been his sockpuppet that said "wipe the snot off your shirt, it's disgusting"...who knows who was Rex's sock and who wasn't. --kizzle 01:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's right. I should go back and grab the history for that. I thought that guy was kinda interesting and I never knew how to blow a 'three stage snotrocket' before - so I saw it as a learning experience. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your rationale, Kizzle. Although a warning or 24 hour ban would have been preferable, the situation escalated because, in my opinion, Sandover was for the most part refusing to acknowledge the points I was making. I was also frustrated by the fact that my very small additions/omissions were being completely reverted while I allowed his entire section to remain essentially intact. On top of that, the POV tag that I inserted (for both the anti-gay blurb and Sandover's edits) was being removed again and again without dialog. This was especially annoying because the tag was also intended for content that Sandover had nothing to do with. Even though I initially added the POV tag and explained it, I was in part banned for a 3RR, again, even though no one bothered to explain why it shouldn't be there. At that point, I was pretty comfortable calling the whole incident "fascistic" simply because the editors/Admins were moving along without me while silencing me by force. Haizum 01:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-post the first and second email you sent? --kizzle 02:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my recycling of some comments.

Haizum 02:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My Rex alarm just went off. --kizzle 02:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And mine had already gone off in the section above this. Paranoia or perception? Derex 02:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Perception. I'd say the same about User:Zer0faults despite that the RFCU could neither confirm nor deny his sockpuppetry. I figured as much reading through Rex's "goodbye note" when Rex said he was "borderline dyslexic" and also said "Owing to the fact that my unit has been activated and I am Being pOsted tO a new location for an extended tour of duty". The military does not take in dyslexic people any more than they take in blind people. That and the fact that all reserve units were activated long ago. Also some interesting things going on here: and some interesting incident reports: -- Mr. Tibbs 04:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

zerofaults has a different feel about him to me. Hazium happened to use a couple redflag phrases on this page, but they don't turn up elsewhere for him. At any rate, he almost never edits articles — literally 95% talk page edits — so he can't do much harm. Derex 05:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Wombdpsw and User:Neutral arbiter had a slightly different feel to them too. They purposely avoided some of the identifying behaviors I noted in Rex's last RfAr when I pointed out Merecat. Rex is learning and adapting. Remember how clumsy his attempts to game the system were in his First ArbComm case? From those first 3 he picked up the idea that as long as he keeps "discussing" he's safe from RFAR. And when that theory blew up in his face thats when he said he's quitting and started spewing sockpuppets. Which makes it even more ironic when he says in his "goodbye note" that all this was some sort of planned experiment, when looking over the history, theres a clear progression and escalation. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someday he'll learn to cover his tracks so well that he'll seem like just any other editor. We can only hope. Derex 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

File:GoshThatsALotOfAsparagus.jpg

Here... I thought you'd appreciate this - it's one of my more kooky but yet more beautiful shots. An organic market in NYC. I was gonna give you a nice flower, or something like that (I love taking floral shots)... but then I saw this and knew you'd appreciate it. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you should up your other floral shots as well! --kizzle 00:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I will - I've got a few lovely ones you may enjoy! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

JML could definitely have found a nicer way to say it (what crawled up his ass and died, anyway?), but he was correct. It's "pejorative", not "perjorative". Just fyi. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Me and James go way back, we're just playful in our edit summaries. I know it was mispelled, I don't think he's a POV pusher, I doubt he thinks I'm a troll, we just mess around with each other... it's all in good fun :) --kizzle 01:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Kasreyn, my first draft was even more perjorative toward ~~this troll~~ kizzle. I toned it down for fear that third parties such as yourself would misinterpret it. Don't mind us, we're just a coupla big overgrown kids. Whenever the adults get around to cleaning up Wikipedia, we'll both be out on our butts. JamesMLane t c 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, James, it's spelled "pejorative", not "perjorative"... learn how to spell. And no, I did not modify your comment in any way. --kizzle 04:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Re "Eat it, bitch": back atcha! JamesMLane t c 03:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You will rue the day, spelling champ. --kizzle 04:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been laboring in obscurity for some time... it's gratifying when someone takes notice. You just made my day. :) Kasreyn 23:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

User:216.22.26.46 is editing from this proxy: http://www.myspaceproxy.eu

Thanks Marge. --kizzle 06:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please advise.Haizum 06:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

K, just don't say please advise in the future, its just a weird thing I have. And I had already posted before you wrote that, so I'm not sure I understand why you did that. --kizzle 06:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nom, Kizzle. I added my two cents to the entmoot. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 10:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as it is not addressing quotes, you may want to change your vote to against again. I do not want you voting under false pretenses - this topic is not, and will not be about how to show the name of the campaign, but merely the inclusion of the Iraq War in this campaign. Rangeley 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am modifying the initial scope of the project to include how to address the name of the campaign. --kizzle 21:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, when that is done it opens a pandoras box of what to call the war that has been opened in previous discussions. I ask you as strongly as possible, limit this discussion to its inclusion, not the name. With Nomen Nescio continually editing "why it is part" and placing misrepresentations, Hippocrite trying to get it deleted, and Mr. Tibbs trying to get me banned, there are enough things that can potentially go wrong already. I want to get this over with once and for all, other things can come later. Rangeley 21:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry that other people are trying to harass you, but seeing as the form of the word is vital to my agree/disagree vote, and that we should address this now rather than just have a re-vote, and especially considering the War on Terrorism page itself uses quotations around the term "War on Terrorism" (which you have not replied or acknowledged yet), I will continue to re-add this to the page. --kizzle 21:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the deletion of comments was unintentional, its been doing that a lot for me lately, cutting off the entire bottom portion of pages, as noted here: User_talk:Tomf688#Odd. I acknowledge that the article uses quotes, and it has been an issue all its own which is seperate from this, and will remain seperate. Again, if you do not want to vote for something that simply states it recognizes the Iraq war as a part of the specific campaign, so be it, and change your vote. That is the question, and that will continue to be the question. Rangeley 21:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it would seem that if the issue is "irrelevant" as you put it, then you would have no say if I added quotations to the page. --kizzle 21:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, read up in the Neutral/Abstain section, you'll see I've already commented. Cheers, Kasreyn 22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That is how it goes you see...first there was a war on drugs...well, drugs won...next is the current war on terror and it seems to be a losing battle so far...next it will be the war on Montana...yes, that's right, Montana. Reason for a war on Montana? Who the fuck knows, man....but it's no dumber than the war on drugs or the current war on terror, so why not, right? Only thing is they'll have to deal with MONGO and his shotguns and all my other weapons of mass destruction...I'll throw cow patties at them! I checked over wikipedia:WOT...seems like its a blog more than anything else...why doesn't anyone start citing evidence from speeches and what not to build their case one way of the other?--MONGO 22:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We actually have done that, and it looks as though discussion has concluded as far as that issue is concerned. Rangeley 23:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you still agree to present the information in the form of Part of the "War on Terrorism," to make it clear in the articles that it is the specific conflict rather than a generalized term? I still am a bit wary of having this be the policy whenever mentioning it, and I feel like we still should leave that for another discussion, as there is a whole other group out there that has been dealing with it. However, for the purposes of the infobox, where we cannot explain the whole issue, I suppose it would be a compromise I would go along with. Seeing that two of the key players in this, Nomen Nescio and Zer0faults, were both blocked for violating the 3RR rule for 6 hours, I think that we should try and reach a consensus before too long. I dont want to see anyone who has participated blocked from putting their input in, and the longer we cant agree the more likely this gets. Rangeley 23:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would accept Part of the "War on Terrorism". --kizzle 00:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, after talking to GTBracchus, I have done as suggested and made a new section in the Iraq talk page, here. It outlines the consensus we reached in the discussion on both issues, feel free to edit or add your own comments as I might have forgotten something. Rangeley 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw your most recent remark to DaEnforcer. I think you might be interested in this. In particular, compare the contribs history of the various IP's with our own 84 and DaEnforcer. I'm serious - you compare it, I'm too lazy to. :P Kasreyn 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Thanks. Haizum 07:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if you'd like input anywhere else. I'm done for the night but feel free to drop a message in the meantime. Haizum 07:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah, just that. Thanks for the input, wanted to get different perspectives on the matter. --kizzle 07:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

One last thing: Haizum 08:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for talk-page spamming regarding a straw poll on Ann Coulter. Internal spamming with the intent to influence the outcome of process is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Once this block expires you are free to continue contributing, but do not continue to send out spam. Thank you. --Cyde↔Weys 14:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I must respectfully contest your blocking... I did not seek to "influence the outcome of process", I simply went up the Ann Coulter talk page and invited any username I had seen participating in discussion (if you'll notice, almost every name on the current Ann Coulter talk page has been contacted regardless of their political background, making sure to include people of a different mindset (conservative) such as Lawyer2b, Mongo, and Haizum; in fact, look at my message towards Haizum:

Hi, you haven't necessarily participated in Ann Coulter discussions in the past but I wanted to get the opinion of a conservative, please see here to cast your thoughts about whether Ann Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro. --kizzle 07:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Haizum, of course, is the same individual who I have frequently disagreed with many many times. Any admin reading this please reconsider, thanks :) --kizzle 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me amend myself. Talk-page spamming is unacceptable, especially in controversial issues. --Cyde↔Weys 16:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So by "talk-page spamming" you mean just contacting other people about a poll, even if it can be shown that the selection of people was not picked to improperly balance the results? Does that mean that User:Rangeley should have been blocked for asking people to join discussion at Wikipedia:WOT, as he most certainly was not? --kizzle 16:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to say that as a result, we do have a healthy amount of both discussion and differing opinions on the matter at the straw poll now, thus I don't see the damage I caused that warranted a block, let alone a 24hr block. --kizzle 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

While spamming is generally a bad thing, this wasn't campaigning. I don't think that a block is appropriate here, especially without a warning. Even if it is, a 24-hour block is excessive. Guettarda 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What policy does "talk page spamming" violate? WP:Spam seems to contemplate informing interested parties, and so does WP:Straw. Assuming that Kizzle informed everyone with a possible interest and used neutral language, I can't see what he did wrong. TheronJ 21:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. --kizzle 05:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

i get blocked for 24 hours for "talk-page spam" soliciting both conservatives and republicans while 3RR violations get a 3hr block on a straw poll where I'm trying to find common ground between liberals and conservatives to describe her work at the CIR, where my primary opponent has many suspected sockpuppets and yet no action on either 3RR or Checkuser boards?

thanks cyde for making me realize wikipedia sucks. peace out guys. --kizzle 19:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(copied from Cyde's talk page)

I don't think the block was appropriate - not without a warning, not for 24 hours. I'd like to ask you to reconsider. Guettarda 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

?? Guettarda 19:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

By the time I noticed Kizzle had already spammed the notice to over a dozen talk pages. It was way too late for a warning. Much like if someone has vandalized over a dozen times, you don't need to warn them again before blocking. I would only ever even consider unblocking someone who has apologized and recognized that what they did was wrong. If you look at Kizzle's verbal explosions all over his talk page ... you can clearly see this is not the case:

get blocked for 24 hours for "talk-page spam" soliciting both conservatives and republicans while 3RR violations get a 3hr block on a straw poll where I'm trying to find common ground between liberals and conservatives to describe her work at the CIR, where my primary opponent has many suspected sockpuppets and yet no action on either 3RR or Checkuser boards?

thanks cyde for making me realize wikipedia sucks. peace out guys.

That doesn't look like someone who should be unblocked to me. --Cyde↔Weys 19:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Spamming is very different from vandalism. It isn't all that rare, and as long as it isn't campaigning I can't see how it's blockable at all. I don't agree with this rationale for a block. As for his reply, it isn't all that surprising - if I got blocked for something that I didn't think was bloackable, and no one raised a finger to help, I'd be pissed off as well. It's a bit much to ask for contrition when he didn't commit a crime. Guettarda 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not being hard-headed, I just don't understand what I did wrong, thus an apology would simply be hollow. As I provided evidence before, Rangeley asked contributors to come to the Wikipedia:WOT page in droves, and the only thing he was accused of was recruiting only conservative editors. The rule against talk-page spam as I understand it is to prevent "stacking the deck" which I explicitly tried not to do. Zer0faults and Haizum are two editors which I almost always disagree with, yet I invited them. I also think your characterization of my talk page as "verbal explosions all over" is quite overblown to say the least. That last ouburst by me I stand by, as it contained no ad hominem attacks and was pointing out that the anon involved got a 3 hour block after a warning for violating 3RR, while I get a sudden 24hr block. Your logic "if someone has vandalized over a dozen times, you don't need to warn them again before blocking" is false, as each individual act of vandalism is obviously wrong. The vandal knows what he's doing is wrong whereas I had no idea that the mere action of contacting a dozen editors of different political stripes to participate in a straw poll is against Wikipedia policy. You should have warned first. --kizzle 20:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle - Wikipedia doesn't suck, but an inequitable application of the rules certainly does - especially when one believes themself to be an unwitting recipient. As we've seen before, sometimes egregious acts by trolls or vandals are tolerated while good-intentioned editors are nailed on overly draconian interpretations of the rules. Whether this is an instance of vote stacking, talk page spamming or overzealous blocking, in any event you have to just Let it go. Go out, have a bike ride, etc., and the Coulter article and the hijinx there will still be there for you to re-engage when you have recharged. Don't let it get you down, and don't give any detractors you may have any advantage. Be strong, be calm and be back soon! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've unblocked you on your own recognizance. I know you don't like getting spam email, so please don't contribute to the same type of problem on Wikipedia. "Because others do it" isn't a valid excuse. And I wasn't being unfair: I hadn't even heard of Rangeley until just now. Don't assume that I fully investigated this issue and then decided to block just you in my evilness. I simply saw that you were vote stacking and blocked you. It doesn't matter if you were trying to even out someone else's actions ... it's still wrong. Don't stoop to the POV-pushers' level, in other words. Thanks for understanding. --Cyde↔Weys 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Let us be absolutely clear: If, in the future, I start a straw poll on an American political page and invite 6 conservative and 6 liberal editors from a list of editors who had recently contributed to the page in question with messages on their pages, I will be blocked again? If so, can you cite the exact passage from Wikipedia policy so I can use it in the future? --kizzle 20:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do recruiting. The way straw polls work is that you just put it up and anyone who's interested in the issue will hopefully find it on their own. Yeah, it's kind of iffy, but it's better than turning everyone's talk page into a raging mass of solicitations. Straw polls aren't such a good idea anyway ... remember, Wikipedia isn't a democracy. It's best to start a discussion. The other way to list a straw poll to get widespread attention without spamming is to use noticeboards or Template:Cent – they exist so you don't have to resort to spamming. Best regards, Cyde↔Weys 20:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't like straw polls as well, but they are useful when an impasse has been reached in discussion, which IMHO had been reached long after I had already started discussion. I only wish you had provided me with a specific Wikipedia passage so I would be crystal clear on what constitutes a blockable offense in the future. If I may respectfully request that next time something like this happens, you warn the user first rather than getting trigger-happy. Thanks in advance. And by the way, I'm still blocked. --kizzle 20:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Kizz - he has a point that spamming is a bad thing. There are places to announce current surveys, things like that. Ruleslawyering isn't much better. Don't ask for a warning next time - make sure there isn't a next time. Next time, post the survey, and if people who have been active on the topic don't show up, then you can mention it to them in person. It's fair to ask for a warning, just make sure that "next time" it isn't about spamming. Guettarda 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a free pass to spam talk pages, I meant that whether it's me or someone else, Cyde needs to be a little less punchy with the block button. I meant no harm and was definetely not "vote stacking" with the intent to skew the results, a little WP:AGF should have been thrown my way by telling me to knock the spamming off before blocking. --kizzle 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

True. But Cyde meant well as well. It doesn't help to escalate things. Guettarda 00:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the block - it's the autoblocker. Let me see if I can find the autoblock... Guettarda 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Should be ok now. Guettarda 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) --kizzle 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Silly, but thought you would appreciate this...--MONGO 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the pick-me-up :) --kizzle 20:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill Clinton This is a very important connection you've drawn here. That article you offered is very helpful, but does not establish an evidenced connection. As well-articulated by the al Qaeda entry, this incident is often attributed to al-Qaedaism rather than al-Qaeda, as it has never been established (or formally contested) that Yousef was a member of aQ at the time of the bombing.

While I suspect we won't agree upon that, there is a second point that makes the revert problematic. "Al-Qaeda began to emerge as a major terrorist threat" with the attack: this is unsubstantiated as well, as no one was talking about al Qaeda in relation to the attack in its immediate wake. http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm (no mention of OBL or Qaeda) http://www.terrorismfiles.org/individuals/ramzi_yousef.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/26/newsid_2516000/2516469.stm

1) Qaeda connection is at least enormously tenuous.
2) Qaeda did not emerge as a major terrorist threat until it was implicated in the '98 attacks.
3) The statement you removed is incontrovertably true, and transmits the same significance to the bio as the provocative statement that remains.

I'm really sorry for taking up your time with this. I won't touch the entry, don't worry, just wanted to try to work this out, for my own benefit. In my own personal understanding of the events that transpired, the '93 bombing still seems well-evidenced as the act of an organization with the same goals as Al Qaeda without being Al Qaeda.

What do you think?DBaba 00:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As John O'Neill kept saying, there was no reason to think they're always going to go after us in Saudi Arabia or Africa or Yemen. They tried to go after us, O'Neill would say, in 1993, in the first World Trade Center attack. O'Neill was convinced, in retrospect -- and it took the FBI others a long time to realize it, many years actually -- but O'Neill was convinced by the year 2000, certainly probably earlier than that, that the 1993 attack was in fact a bin Laden-led attack. We hadn't heard the phrase Al Qaeda at the time.

We now know, going back through historical documents, that there was an Al Qaeda [back then]. It had just been formed, just been given that name. It was small. But O'Neill would say the attack of 1993 was Al Qaeda. The attempted attack at the millennium in the United States was Al Qaeda. -

While we weren't aware of Al Qaeda at the time, it was the same organization according to O'Neill. This seems like a pretty rock-solid citation, no? Do you have any citations to notable opinions on the matter that argue that Al Qaeda was not involved in 1993? --kizzle 04:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, glad I could engage you on this!

First off, you've not addressed the problem with your re-inserted sentence asserting that "Al Qaeda began to emerge" with the incident. OBL announced his jihad in 1998, marking the emergence of Al Qaeda as a significant threat--if not that moment, then the actual bombings attributed to them later that year. This seperate point is that al Qaeda did not emerge in relation to the WTC bombing (aside from al Qaeda not actually perpetrating them).

Now, the document. "According to Oneil it was the same organization" is not even an isolated expression of agreement between two people. Besides which, this context lends itself to semantic difficulty: whether or not Yousef was Al Qaeda at the time, it was the same "people" who carried out the attacks, i.e. Muslim extremists, "organized" in precisely the same way by precisely the same people, for all intents and purposes. The same people who killed Meir Kahane in concurrence with the expressed will of Omar Abdel-Rahman, for instance, a crime that I've never seen re-attributed to aQ.

The point is, pictures of Yousef having lunch with OBL, if they were to exist, would not make Yousef an al Qaeda operative. The terrorists behind the 93 attack were pretty well mopped up by the FBI's own standards, with the exception of the financiers, one of which may have been OBL--and if it was, Yousef is still not al Qaeda. This is why al Qaeda gets mention sometimes: because it's all the same post-Soviet Sunni radicalism, because the Blind Sheik even rubbed shoulders with OBL, and because OBL's money is traceable to everything.

That said, really everywhere you look you have a complete omisson of Al Qaeda in regards to the 93 bombing, or at most a "suspected of carrying out or directing sympathetic groups to carry out".

Historical records with complete omissions of al Qaeda:
1996 FAS
1998 CNN Last World Trade Center bombing conspirator sentenced
2002 Tenet testimony (actually notes 'common thread'--wish he had more to that)
2004 BBC update to original story
2004 FBI Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of bombing

And this is where the problem lies, really. You've challenged me to disprove something, and all I can really do is highlight a dearth of proof, and the fact that that damned sentence goes further than the FBI, the CIA, or the administration has ever gone.

At any rate, that research has convinced me, and I wasn't convinced myself at the outset. Best I could find for the perspective to the contrary is FBI noting OBL's name coming up in the investigation, ostensibly regarding funding, and even then it wasn't OBL exclusively. It was in 98 that they prioritized him, prior to the bombings, at his jihad announcement.

But bin Laden denied to me that he was behind the bombing and claimed he didn't know Ramzi Yousef. "Unfortunately," he said with a wave of his hand, "I did not know him before the incident."

DBaba 10:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We didn't know at the time that it was Al Qaeda, hence the historical omissions, but I have a quote from Richard Clarke saying that John P. O'Neil, "a top American anti-terrorism expert who worked as a special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation until late 2001... In 1995, O'Neill began to intensely study the roots of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing after he assisted in the capture of Ramzi Yousef, who was the leader of that plot" believed that Al Qaeda was responsible for the 1993 WTC attack... thus according to Wikipedia standards, I've satisfied WP:RS. You make convincing arguments, but I must take the word of someone in the know first. --kizzle 13:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Right on, thanks for hearing me out. But in closing, let me just say I vehemently disagree with you on the inclusion of the sentence we began with: because the sentence I inserted in its place is certainly true, and what stands now is both hearsay and speculation, and completely lacking in evidence of being anything but hearsay and speculation.

It is my understanding that rather than this being a reliable source relative to its competition, it stands as "Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community", as per that link. I think the Council on Foreign Relations hits our grey area pretty aptly: See single para at bottom. This is the prevalent viewpoint, as far as I can determine from my silly little investigation: that these guys are adjacent players to that aQ world, without having neatly been a part of it at the time of the attacks.

Thanks for your patience in hearing me out!DBaba 03:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Tlizzle was blocked by User:Essjay...it is an indefinite block, which surprised me since there was only one edit...anyway, I will leave a note for Essjay and ask him to do the unblock since I never overturn any other admins.--MONGO 04:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...I think they believe that I am mad or something...all I am doing is trying to protect myself and all wikipedians from this time wasting trollery...I very much appreciate your barnstar...thanks man! Let me know how I can be of help to you.--MONGO 03:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, honestly, I have never edited at any other wiki. Someone sure did a good job trying to mimic me though. I think Jimbo Wales would be fairly supportive of my attempts to reduce substantially the spread of their cruft in wikipedia though. I was particularily pissed at someone accusing me ousing Ed Poor as a log in name to fix the articles there. I do know of two other editors that have contacted me via email that state that they have vandalized many articles there though...names will not be reveiled.--MONGO 03:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Jus so you know...User:Tlizzle is not currently blocked..the banners at his page can be removed...keep him sober!--MONGO 04:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Will do (or at least keep him away from the computer when he isn't) --kizzle 04:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't sure what was going on and probably RVd to fast. Rjm656s 04:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all good, I probably should be spending more time being productive anyways :) --kizzle 04:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not armed! :-) I removed the part on my user page about you providing the link to the BigDaddy777 business because it sounded sarcastic to me, after some thought, so I'm here to give you credit because I stole the link off of your user page. It feels like the right thing to do anyway. Regards, Karwynn 15:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Dramatica_what.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and since I'm here, I noticed that your talk page is very long. If you want, you can archive it to keep everything easier to manage. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 19:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle, you may be interested to know that the trolling Main page image was uploaded to this image this morning, they don't miss a trick. NoSeptember 19:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So, what's the deal, along with being a Deputy Commissar you've now been appointed as the Truant Officer for the Liberal Cabal?

Anyway, a combination of humdrum RL factors has caused me to cut back my Wikitime. I anticipate that the situation will be temporary. Meanwhile, just to reassure you that I'm still alive, I did find time for a smackdown of Ann Coulter. JamesMLane t c 21:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently while you were away, she became a civil rights advocate. Just don't be gone too long or by the power invested in me by the spirit of Mao Tse Tung I'll have to issue you a citation, spelling champ. --kizzle 22:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I trust you'll accept my latest excuse for my Wikitruancy. On Tuesday I took the train up to Norwalk and did some leafletting. I haven't thrown away the train schedule, either; if there's a challenge to Lamont in November, my message to Joe is, "Bring it on!" JamesMLane t c 06:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuck man, if I had the money for a plane I would have flown out to NY and got a ride with you... I think I'm definetely going to try to be a part of the Nov election. And I doubt Joementum's backing down, he's got a chance to win given high repub turnout (I wonder if the RNC will even ask the 3rd place guy to step down)... what a crock of shit, calling himself a true democrat in the debate. McCain/Lieberman '08, ugh. --kizzle 17:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

truancy has considerably reduced my blood pressure ;) i'll swing back by once i get these couple papers finished, which seems to be approximately never. i saw kangaroos by the beach, and a platypus. vegemite is not good, but the beer is. there are beautiful parrots everywhere. /waves to ryan & james, if they're around. -D

While it is a somewhat amusing website, I don't think http://www.connecticutforlieberman.com that you linked on the CT senate race discussion page is the official CFL webpage. It seems more of a parody site. --Bobblehead 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Wow, that was a good mockup as I thought it was their actual site! Thanks for the catch :) --kizzle 21:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure Lieberman has a campaign site at the moment. If you go to http://www.joe2006.com you get a 'does not exist' message. Oops. But someone definitely has too much time on their hands with the CFL site..--Bobblehead 21:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. You would! lol I do hate when people want to argue on my talk page. Especially when I'm not even involved! lol --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha, I actually enjoy other people arguing on my page, it's usually quite entertaining and I feel like Don King promoting a boxing match :) --kizzle 07:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like someone slipped in some Swift Boat crap when we weren't looking. You might want to have a look at the Vietnam section of the Kerry article. Gamaliel 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

-- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor and head over here? I'm sort of worried. I made a comment which I felt was a simple piece of logic and Ryan has interpreted it as a personal attack. I keep rereading it but I can't see where I went wrong. You seem to know Ryan, can you tell me what it was I said and how I can reassure him I wasn't attacking him?

It's a real shame, too, because from his (her? I just noticed your barnstar) userpage, he (she?) seems like the sort of person I would normally get along with wonderfully. Unfortunately, our total disagreement on the PublicgirlUK thing (see Jimbo's talk page for the original argument) seems to have put paid to any possibility of ever getting to know RF. Right now, I'd be happy if I can stay un-blocked. ^_^; Cheers, Kasreyn 05:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, the issue seems to have been resolved. Kasreyn 05:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kizzle,

I thought you might be interested in another data point on the emerging policy regarding survey spamming. Apparently, your dozen or so notices were too many, but five or so carefully worded notices are ok. (See here). I'd still do survey notices with caution, if at all, however. TheronJ 13:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I intensely dislike the cquote style, and I've taken you task for your use of it. See Template talk:Cquote#Edit wars over quotation style. Using this silly template is, in my mind, more shameful than something like being a sex-crime victim, so out of mercy I didn't mention you by name. Nevertheless, your thoughts would be welcome. JamesMLane t c 07:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

With any luck, Casey has so victimized our hapless hero by now. Derex 07:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

She used me and ran, which is ok by me ;) --kizzle 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, if I may briefly return this thread to its actual (albeit G-rated) subject... I appreciate your support on the substance of the Chris Wallace (journalist) article. But me still no likey cquote. JamesMLane t c 20:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

“

to each his own, i guess. --kizzle 20:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

”

In Jimbo Wales' talk page you said: All this over some chick who uploaded naked photos of herself? Is there an archive somewhere? ;) --kizzle 21:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is; the URL is http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=The_Sausage_Factory_and_the_Sausage_Fest

(I wonder if this will get me banned)

... for your article collection on voting machinesstory link, bugmenot login Derex 21:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

over and fucking over again. i'm working on something with all the stuff i've done on voting machines, hopefully i'll get to show it to you soon. --kizzle 03:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Would love to read it. Given your expertise, you may have some insights into the merits of this. Derex 07:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

An image or media file, Image:John stewart.jpg, has been removed from your userpage or user talk page because it was licensed as fair use. Wikipedia's fair use policy states that fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's fair use policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of fair use images. Thank you for your cooperation.

-- tariqabjotu 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry about ricky, kiz. i know you two were 'close'. australia seems pretty darn happy about it all though. Derex 04:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's alright, I'm a fickle ferret. --kizzle 05:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 21, 2006 Raul654 03:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the article since May and I just wanted to let you know how impressed I am with its current form. I'm assuming you are mostly responsible for this, but please share my praise and appreciation with any others that contributed. -- Samuel Wantman 01:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Along with Reaverdrop, Brian.FSM, and Lee Bailey besides myself...Thanks a lot for your kind words! :) --kizzle 03:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind remarks. But looking at the situation, I don't see this one turning out well. Fortunately, Oden has WP copyright policy on his side. And despite all this nonsense about consensus, the WP copyright policy is NOT a consensus policy. It is a legal policy - it is part of WP's founding principles and will not change, ever. Even if every WP editor and admin voted against it, Jimbo would veto. So Kyaa hasn't a leg to stand on. Kasreyn 07:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, the image dispute is pretty much resolved. I'm more talking about the whitewashing going on in the page, read the latter half of the talk page. --kizzle 07:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Some things work out for the best, and the community has spoken. I imagine I am better able to deal with harassing editors as an admin only and not be bound by an even higher code of standards expected of an arbitrator. If there is anything you need, never hesitate to ask.--MONGO 04:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Guettarda 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Support --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 23:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the bot will now handle regular archiving on the schedule you provided. I hand archived off everything before 2006 into Archive 1 because the old signature style (from 2004/2005) tends to break the bot. I then had the bot archive everything fitting the criteria (which was all but one post) into archive 2. It should be by every day to see if you need archiving and take care of it from there. Let me know if you need to make any changes to the schedule. Essjay (Talk) 06:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Essjay, you rock. I finally had to break down and archive the page, 2 years was enough ;) --kizzle 07:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to include a link to the archive somewhere on this page... —Doug Bell ^talk 01:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We had a meetup in NYC this weekend, and at one point in the conversation I happened to mention how glad I was that I no longer had any ArbComm pages on my watchlist. Now you want to drag me back in.

Oh, all right, I'll go take a look. Damn, the things I do for the Liberal Cabal. And I don't even get the 72 virgins as a reward. Do the Islamofascists have a cabal I can join? JamesMLane t c 04:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: Having now waded through much of the ruckus over there, I'm not moved to comment. I have no recent experience with either of the protagonists, and I don't feel like reading a slew of diffs to form an opinion. Yes, I'm getting lazy. JamesMLane t c 07:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(insert perjorative here). I thought Mongo was your boy too. How quickly doth the Liberal Cabal fade from your memory! --kizzle 08:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite some time ago, when MONGO was new, I had frequent run-ins with him on the George W. Bush article. I thought he was tendentiously pushing a right-wing POV. My vague impression is that he's now matured in his approach to editing. Disciplinary action should obviously be based on his more recent conduct, not on his acts as a newbie, which are all I could comment on. Is this a Cabal issue? You can put it on the agenda for the next meeting of the Politburo if we ever get around to holding one. JamesMLane t c 11:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I had the same impressions as well. I think what it boils down to is that desysopping is a bit drastic given the circumstances and that this Arbcom case represents one small incident from his immense admin career. While I do believe some sort of sanction is appropriate, he's contributed way too much in other areas of the project to be let go. It also irks me that his emotional reactions are stemming from the 9/11 conspiracy theorists who believe that the planes were holograms, which makes his reaction seem a bit understandable to say the least. I'll put it on the agenda right between how to frame the next Republican congressman (now that we've framed Tom DeLay) and how we can be more efficient traitors to our country (I'm thinking of singing our national anthem in French). --kizzle 22:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is just stupid. I might have voted for you, but I can't support that kind of behavior. —Doug Bell ^talk 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What was stupid? No diff link? --kizzle 00:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Listing 4 oppose votes attributed to other editors. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I must be crazy but I can't see how me trying to keep myself honest is going to disqualify me, especially considering I wasn't trying to gain an advantage but rather the opposite. If you're talking about forgery, please keep in mind I used {{User|Kizzle}} rather than three tildes, as I wasn't trying to forge their names (I even explained in the intro). --kizzle 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that while you may not like people reacting to this one mistake, consider this: admins are expected to be able to following proper procedures—that, judgement and trust are the essence of the job. This is akin to sending in a resumé full of spelling errors and a big wine stain. Your RfA is the wrong place to get procedure and process like this so wrong. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

By putting in the names of editors who I think would have a problem with me becoming an admin? I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree, and given that I neither used three tildes nor intended to forge their names (read my third paragraph), I don't see anywhere in procedure nor policy where I can't add the names of potential opposers, though you could quote policy or procedure to prove me wrong. --kizzle 02:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by voting the names of any other editors, regardless of where or your rationale, is so clearly a reflection of bad judgment that I am amazed you are not just accepting that and moving on. If you don't like people questioning your actions and your reasons for them and being critical of what you do, then you don't want to be an admin. My initial comment here was to give you a heads up that your misstep here was going to cause serious commotion, but now I'm wondering if it is really an aberration or not. —Doug Bell ^talk 03:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"If you don't like people questioning your actions and your reasons for them and being critical of what you do" is a blatant straw man. I don't mind when people question my actions, just as I hope you don't mind if I politely defend my actions as well. Commonly in straw polls on pages, I've seen many a poll where the author of the poll puts where he thinks editors perceptions are, and they are free to change them. My mistake was in using the User tag (NOT the tilde signature) which made it look similar to a sig. Yes, I won't put other people's names on the oppose list. No, in no way shape or form were they forgeries. Thank you for your estimation as to my admin capabilities, I'll take it under consideration. --kizzle 03:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from coming to a user's page whom you've never talked to and calling their action "stupid". There's a better, more polite way to get your point across. --kizzle 03:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the "stupid". I was just a little shocked and trying to impress upon you that your action there was not going to be accepted, at all. I actually went to your RfA predisposed to vote for it, and although I vote on a lot of RfAs, I probably oppose more often than support, so you started with more of an assumption of qualification than many do in my opinion. When I saw the one comment pointing out what you'd done I was a little frustrated as that made it impossible for me to support you for reasons I've laid out above. So, sorry if my frustration came across the wrong way.

As to "blatant straw man", I guess there are two possibilities here. Either 1) you truly don't see the problem in what you did; or 2) you are unwilling to admit when you make a mistake and move on. Neither one is comforting.

The point of my responding on your talk page instead of on the RfA where I normally would was to inform you of your mistake in a less-public forum. It was done as a favor—please don't assume bad faith on my part. If you want to request adminship in the future, I suggest you familiarize yourself with some of the processes around here, starting with RfA. Good luck in the future, —Doug Bell ^talk 04:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I just got tripped up from your first comment. No harm done. The reason why I characterized your quotation as a straw man is because I don't mind criticism of my actions, in fact, I almost perversely thrive on them (read the intro to my RfA) as long as they are civil. There's no question I bungled the RfA as it is commonly put forth, but I feel that too much attention was paid to a minor unintentional violation of RfA procedure that was definetely not forgery (I even mentioned in my statement that I would be pre-emptively adding the names), which became a reason that was cited as a reason to vote against me. Bottom line: I won't be putting other people's names in polls, even if I meant to put them in to disadvantage myself. I just was saddened to see that all my experience in controversial articles, my work with semi-protection, bringing Colbert from deleted to featured in a record time, all was forgotten because of a minor mistake that wasn't even made to give myself an advantage. If I ever do submit an adminship request again, I'll simply stick to what I wrote before without the oppose votes, I just don't think that despite it being against normal RfA procedures, it should have taken over to the point where people are voting against me solely because I preemptively added oppose votes against me. --kizzle 05:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

<dedent>I don't mind criticism of my actions, in fact, I almost perversely thrive on them...
I can completely appreciate that. In fact, I took a similar approach (minus the prevoting :-) on my RfA. I actually wanted to invite a critical assessment of my participation as part of the process and found the whole thing rather enjoyable. I completely understand your frustration, but realize that an RfA, like a job interview, is going to extrapolate a lot about you from the minimal context—a misstep is going to get magnified out of proportion. That's just a reality of the process that you need to take into consideration. I'll be looking for your next RfA. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

RFA has a whole bunch of expectations, and you're getting tangled up in them. (One of them is not to respond too much to opposes). I'd love to see you become an admin, but in the short run, the best thing to do is probably to withdraw the self-nom, sign up for editor review and admin coaching per aeropagitica, and start doing some chores. TheronJ 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I guess I walked into a hornet's nest. It sucks that I'm getting opposed not based upon my contributions or experience but on the quality of my familiarity with RfA guidelines. A simple addition of critics who I thought would hypothetically vote against me to keep me honest has cost me 2 votes at least, the fact that I combined questions 2 and 3 cost me a vote, the fact that I put a one-line note on my own talk page about adminship cost me a vote. If that outweighs my experience and contributions, then so be it. --kizzle 01:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting angry does you no good either. Take a break and come back. Keep in mind how much you're getting paid to be here. A Train ^{take the} 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am angry, but I believe the points that I politely articulated still stand and that I am allowed to make them. I'll be on break shortly. --kizzle 02:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Kizzle...we have edited together off and on for almost two years...I just now saw all this after logging into Wiki...give it a month or so and try again....*Everyone else...Kizzle likes to jest, so I am sure he meant absolutely no harm with his nom...I know this editor, and he would be a decent admin I believe.--MONGO 06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to see what happened (especially since I missed it all). It really seems like humour is no longer acceptable here. I hope it hasn't been too discouraging. If you do like MONGO says and run again in a month (and I hope you do run again) let one of us (MONGO or me) nominate you. Sadly an RFA is all about presentation and jumping through hoops. Guettarda 12:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sad but true, and here and here are some of the hoops you may want to be aware of. NoSeptember 14:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

RfA really is not a place to joke too much, though the question answers thing didn't bother me so much. However the "creative way to be blocked" and adding enemy oppose votes does suggest a sort of reckfullness. Thats too bad because the one old event normally would not have mattered so much where it not for the later. Often, people who have issues with a candidate may just vote "neutral", and there are "weak/strong" oppose votes. On top of that, I've been supported by people I'd though would oppose me for ArbCom; you never assume how the people vote. Also, it puts words in people's mouth, just like drastically editing another user's comments. Even mentioning people who will likely oppose (rather than voting for them) suggest a simple us/them dichotamcy that we could do without. I missed this RfA, but I would have supported where it not for the pseudo-oppose votes. Voice-of-All 22:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to let people know, I wasn't trying to joke with adding the oppose votes, I was just trying to be honest with myself about my Wikicareer. It wasn't meant to elicit a laugh, it was for my own sake. --kizzle 03:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for the support! MONGO 09:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As you have participated in this discussion in the past, I invite you to participate in discussion on the topic of the relationship between the Iraq War and the US-led War on Terrorism campaign at this location. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Always remember to include [sic] when quoting the "misspelling" (sic), just to emphasise the point that you think that the other people in the dispute are too dumb to figure out that it's a quote. Guettarda 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

good call, fixed it. oh, and nice try with the "meant to do it" routine, kizzel. Derex 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good, good, you're learning! (Oops, forgot!) Mess with the best, die like the rest! (was that trite enough?) --kizzel 23:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Its so true. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Ann Coulter article is back up from protection. However, it wasn't long before Lou Sander started making POV edits, against our consensus. I made a section about it on the talk page. I refuse to engage with him at the moment because he never actually addresses any points I make. I hate to come to you for help, but you seem like you're good at handling these things, while keeping things civil. If you could chime in on the section I made (regardless of whether or not you agree with me), it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Ubiq 03:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The number of Ann Coulter supporters in the Ann Coulter article is absolutely too overwhelming for me. Why anyone would like her so much that they want to remove the truth about her from an encyclopedia article is absolutely beyond me. We really need more numbers against some of the people editing it. Do you know any other smart people we could amass to stop them from making bold edits? --Ubiq 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that AGF cite. I don't think it was warranted. Just a pet peeve of mine, and I reacted out of proportion to it. Cool Hand Luke 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's all good, no harm done :) --kizzle 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Lou has been a thorn in your (and possibly others) side on the Coulter article, but please remember to comment on content not the contributor. Your last post can easily be taken the wrong way. Remember WP:DFTT (not saying anyone is or isn't but it is good advice. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you think of a more constructive way to get Lou to participate in discussions rather than ignore points and repeat himself ad nauseum? I'm all ears. --kizzle 22:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I come across editors who do not appear to be constructive I usually ignore them and deal with the ones who are trying to improve articles. It is hard sometimes though. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll try to just ignore. Thanks for the words of advice :) --kizzle 22:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That article's gone to hell. BD777 would be happy with it. :( Guettarda 01:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. --kizzle 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to take myself off the Ann Coulter project. I just don't foresee much good being done, especially when people like Lou and the various IP user vandals are consistently allowed to troll the talk page, even though none of them ever provide any actual points to back up what they say. So to avoid a sunk cost fallacy, I'll go back to editing articles about things I'm interested in. Good luck fighting the good fight, and if you need my vote for anything, you can always come get me. Best. --Ubiq 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My advice to you is just to take the day off and chill out for a bit. Your points are valid, and if you let people get you down to the point of quitting then you've let the trolls win. Don't get emotional over it, ignore those who give you trouble, and just remain civil and levelheaded. Trolls will come and go, so you've got to develop a thick skin :) --kizzle 20:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I love arguing with them because they make it so incredibly easy for me to sound right, but at some point there's a difference between making good points and those good points having an actual effect. The problem is, none of the Ann Coulter supporters are open-minded enough to listen to an opposing argument, perhaps a reflection on her. I think if wikipedia were set up not to allow such blatant trolling / POV pushing to happen, I'd consider staying. But when I saw this page from Lou Sander and his mentions on his userpage that Ann Coulter is "brilliant", I kind of noticed that he's a little more than obsessed with her. You really wouldn't expect it given the variety of things/accomplishments he's done in his life, but then again you wouldn't expect such poor argumentation coming from someone who "teaches logic and critical thinking" either. I think we live in sad times when anyone like Ann Coulter would be referred to as brilliant. But, I digress.

In adding a new section to amygdala yesterday, I realized I contributed much more to wikipedia in an hour than I ever did with the Ann Coulter article. And like I told another user, brain structures don't have crazy fans that e-stalk you. I might consider checking back in here and there but to me its pretty hard to do that without tearing apart someone's argument, and making subsequent rebuttals etc. And again, it's rare the other person listens. I don't think it's the case that I'm getting my emotions involved. I'm looking at this in a more cost-benefit kind of way. I'm more interested in contributing to psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy articles here and I think I can be more effective in these realms instead of debating with stubborn idiots over their favorite political pundit. Good luck with all of it, and like I said, if you need a vote on anything, just hit my talk page. Regards.

P.S. I owe you and a few other people a barnstar. I'll try to get on that. --Ubiq 22:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you think of a more constructive way to get Lou to participate in discussions rather than ignore points and repeat himself ad nauseum? - user conduct RFC? Guettarda 21:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it. --kizzle 01:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether you really meant to revert my work on the A.C. article, when you reverted back to your own version from Luke's quote-stripped one (diff). I'd made a number of small changes, without essentially altering your version, and including adding references to the C-SPAN quote. Did you really think they were all for the worse, or were you (as I hope) just intent on undoing Luke's deletion? Best Regards, Lonewolf BC 05:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just reverting back to before the edit war between you two without prejudice either way to your content.--kizzle 06:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an odd way of describing it, considering that in so doing you reverted Luke on the part he'd already been edit-warring over with you and Sixth, and that he had not otherwise been reverting my edits. Full credit to you for trying to be even-handed, but I wish you'd looked over the situation more carefully. (As for me, I was not meaning to edit-war, but only to finish the refining edits I was about, and Luke's reversions, coming meanwhile, got in the way. I suppose I should have put up an "In use" tag.)
Cordially, Lonewolf BC 18:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your barnstar shipment has arrived. Arrange it to wherever you want it to go (if you want it at all). Good luck on further editing, it looks like you guys are actually making some progress. --Ubiq 08:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure :) Just put it on my talk and I'll move it to the userpage. --kizzle 10:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Crap. I put it on your userpage first before mentioning it here. Hope you don't mind. Is it proper etiquette to put it on a talk page instead? I'm new to awarding barnstars. --Ubiq 11:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah it's chill. Thanks :) --kizzle 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Lonewolf, as the sole disputant of the current passage, you brought back the CBC discussions from archives but didn't add anything to the discussion. Is there something else you or anyone else wants to say so that we can archive and move on to other issues? --kizzle 20:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving on to other issues can be done regardless. Archiving stuff under a week old was pre-mature, just in principle, so I brought it back. I do have more that I might say on it. Likewise for other folk, and the exercise of that option oughtn't be made inconvenient by archiving so soon. The talk-page seems to have settled down, so I don't think we need worry about it spinning out of control, lengthwise. -- Lonewolf BC 00:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been tentatively identified as a blasphemous editor. A review of your behaviour will continue until 0000 GMT, 25 February 2007. 209.244.42.140 02:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know what the results are. --kizzle 03:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the intrusion, but I'm curious to know who will be conducting this review? (I followed the link Lonewolf BC left on the Coulter page.)Anynobody 01:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

tentatively? the man is like kryptonite to wholesome. ~~150.203.2.85~~ oops, t'was I, Derex. 12:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for some good shit-talking, but what does that even mean? "kryptonite to wholesome"? --kizzle 19:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely that Kizzle is a menace to all those who believe questioning, inquiring, doubting, challenging and learning is blasphemy. And since it's not clear which deity has been offended by your intellect, I guess all the deities mankind has invented are upset. And on the basis of that statement, I guess now I'm on this cool secret list of 'blasphemous' editors? Let me know and I'll be sure to tremble in fear of the slightest thundercrack. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I just assumed he was thinking of the ferret god. And nicely done, Ryan. I'm pretty sure that some grade-A blaspheming right there: "deities mankind has invented". Everyone knows the deities were vomited up by Cronus. .... Kizzel, kryptonite != good to X. .... late night trivia for my homeboy; i just stumbled across this. Derex 08:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

150.203.2.85 your answer doesn't explain to me who is reviewing this particular piece of kryptonite. Anynobody 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn you Derex, I thought I was talking to a secret blasphemy enforcer from an unknown religious group. (j/k Derex) Anynobody 04:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Kizzle - You should put that comment in a box on your userpage. Raul654 22:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Cabal update

LOL!

Need help on WP:SEMI

Wikifun round 12

Re: User:Kizzle/secret et al.

penis

Image copyright problem with Image:Kizzle.jpg

RfC opened for Mr j galt

Help please on the Mark Levin page

yep

Thanks

Yo yourself&nbsp;:)

I like fries

Liberal Cabal

URGENT! Your vote needed

Request to reopen Rex071404&nbsp;(talk&nbsp;· contribs) RfAr #4

About Merecat

Sock

Don't make me cry

B, O2, G E R

Thanks

Please Advise

For you

Pejorative

Following up on "Democrat Party" discussion

Thank you!

User:216.22.26.46

Ingraham

Truthiness for Featured

Quotes and Votes

WP:WOT

War on drugs--&gt;War on Terrorism--&gt;War on Montana

"Quotes and Votes" revisited

Re: Ann Coulter

Talk page spamming

bullshit

You never know

Qaeda and WTC bombing

User:Tlizzle

Barnstar

RE: Sheesh

Credit

Image:Dramatica_what.jpg listed for deletion

My sorta Wikibreak

CT for Lieberman link

"I like butts

John Kerry

Flower for a friend

Hey, co-VP

Survey spamming revisited

Quotation style

Publicgirluk

misc

John stewart.jpg removed from your user page

Heads up

Colbert

I appreciate that.

Much appreciated

RFA

Archiving

Your note re ArbComm

What were you thinking?

Thanks

Iraq and WoT

Your essay

Ann Coulter article

amassing an army

Friendly Reminder

Did you mean to revert me?

Coulter-talk

Under Review

Yo yourself :)

Request to reopen Rex071404 (talk · contribs) RfAr #4

War on drugs-->War on Terrorism-->War on Montana