Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
Please no personal attacks. Instead, be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Thanks. Zzyzx11(Talk)00:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Grazi! It's relatively new...for ages I had next to nothing on my user page. But then circumstances propelled PEGE into being, and inertia produced the rest. We should have a better article on Christopher Hitchens than we do presently. I'd be very sympathetic to Hitchens's point of view, but I still think I can produce NPOV material. I doubt that's true for our anonymous Georgian friend. Babajobu18:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, with terms like "apologist" and "court jester", he's a regular AP reporter. Hell, lets just give him a fucking Peabody. Kade03:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's two different people. The talk-page ranter is in Georgia, the "court jester" is in Canada. They make a great pair, though. Babajobu03:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be inadvertantly working in collusion. The Georgian did revert one of my minor changes, but it was actually a reasonable revert, so I didn't challenge it. He left the substantive stuff. We'll see if that keeps up. Babajobu03:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say, that would be a really really bizarre situation, a Christopher Hitchens fan who also likes a religious lunatic.. Kade03:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a strange mix. On the other hand, I'm an animal rights Nazi as well as a Hitchens supporter. People tend to think that's a strange mix, though I don't. Babajobu03:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't know anyone who thinks animals should be treated "on equal terms" with humans. You'll be waiting a long time before you see marches for "animal suffrage", and so forth. Babajobu04:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be suprised. The point I'm trying to make, and I don't doubt that you're not a koolaid drinker, is that there are varying degrees of animal rights and I require clarification. Kade04:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are varying degrees. The right that I believe should be extended to animals is the right to avoid being subjected to intense physical pain by human beings because it is profitable to do so. That's the right I'm interested in. Babajobu04:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding to note that I did not click your link to article Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Kade22:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for the invitation, but I'm not interested in becoming a member of any organization that accepts people like me as a member. I'm not yet convinced that France is a victim of islamic extremism, unfortunately, my opinion is that the socialist ideal of a "right" to employment is their reason for rioting. When people believe that their rights, real or perceived, have been violated, they will become violent. Kade 07:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, even if you don;t have a job, that's no excuse to riot and commit arson. That's not what civilised people do. At the end of the day, every mob action is an aggregation of the actions of individual people. I refuse to accept explanations for events which absolve people of thier personal responsibility to behave in a moral fashion. Klonimus09:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, each of the rioter's chose to riot for thier own personal reason. Many of them are using their hatred for france/frech society as an excuse to let out an animalistic urge to destroy. IMHO if they hate france so much, they should go back to Algeria/Tunisia etc. Most of them never had it so good as to be in France. As is typical of leftists, they refuse to acknowledge the role of personal choice in this equation and instead try very hard to tolerate the intolerable. That's the real test. Can you excuse the behvior of other which completely violates your own values for the sake of "tolerance". Sadly many people on wikipedia can do so. Klonimus09:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Socialism is all about the removal of personal responsibility from the equation. Marx's class struggle and conflict theory all absolve a person of any rational decision making, asserting that any decision made by the proletariat, of purchase or where they work, is simply an illusion of contentment perpetuated by the bourgeiouse. Notice I never said I approved of their rioting, nor that there is a right to employment, only that France, as a Democratically Socialist nation tries to propagate that myth. Kade 09:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
This man broke a law which he knew carried the death penalty. IDIOT! That law might not make a lot of sense to you, but it is still the law. If the law says don't walk on the grass or you will be hanged - DON'T WALK ON THE GRASS! You don't have to walk on the grass. It's not necessary to walk on the grass. Sure, walking on the grass might shorten your journey, but you know the risk you are taking when you break the law. If you really think the law needs to be changed, campaign to have it changed before you step on the grass. But until that time, DON'T WALK ON THE BLOODY GRASS! This guy bet big in the casino of life. He put all his chips on being able to get through the airport without anyone spotting his death-sentence. He lost. Boo hoo. This shouldn't be reported as a tragedy for one idiot. It should be reported as a successful drug bust.
So in your myopic little world the state has the final say? Jesus, I can see you were paying attention in Government class. Newsflash: Legitimate governments can only govern in compliance with natural human rights...I.E. - Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. Kade17:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition of non-violent is skewed. According to this, 1 gram might be worth US$150. 400 grams of heroin - do the math. Do you think it found its way into his possession without any violence occurring along the way? The guy had 26,000 doses on heroin on him. Do you think no further violence would come from that amount of heroin hitting the streets? Do I want that crap near my kids? No. Do I want that crap in the possession of people who might come near my kids? No. Do I want it to make people so addicted that they commit violent crimes to fund their habits? Of course not. Saying that this is a non-violent crime is blinded, lefty tosh. What he was involved with was despicable. I'm glad he's dead. I mean, really glad. I'm gonna throw a party for the occasion. I'll invite all of the people who's lives have been trashed by someone's use of 'non-violent' heroin. I'm gonna dance on his grave. It's just one more scummer out of the way. I'm sick of my world being dumped on by people who just want to take, take, take. What is not to be happy about? Really? --User:JohnOw04:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The crime he was convicted of was drug possession, NOT murder, assault, etc. If you're an adult (as you claim to be, since you assert you have children), you should know that simply asserting a guilt-by-association notion of "if drugs are involved, therefore violence must be involved too! Q-E-D! HO HO! I am an absolute genius!" is a rather asinine assertion. From your vernacular, I don't know where you come from, though it's certainly not my country. My objections to this punishment is not "lefty tosh", they are hard-coded into my country's constitution.
Amendment VIII, United States Constitution
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Also, I have deleted your ugly excesses from your sig. That stupid stuff may be tolerated elsewhere, but this is my talk page, not yours. Trust me, I have medical reasons - Your sig in its original form makes me want to vomit. If you wish to continue your little railfest of manly-man beating your breast and praising that your odes-to-abortions now have safe school zones in a country you're not even from (or are you? That might explain a lot), be sure to leave the tacky sig out. Thanks. Kade17:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have considered the various arguments employed by both sides, and declare that the winner of this exchange is Kade. Congratulations, sir. Better luck next time, JohnOw Babajobu19:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure what we're arguing about, and I wonder if it's gotten more quarrelsome than necessary because I was confused at some point. So let me make two completely separate comments on the general idea of calling someone a fascist:
Case 1: referring to a user. This is what I said don't about, and I mean it. Calling a user a fascist is never productive and it is a duragatory term (to almost everyone in society). It will only make things more heated, and it will not solve any disagreement that I can think of. This is why WP:NPA exists.
Case 2: in an article. WP:NPA doesn't apply here. If a historical figure is a fascist, someone must have written that in a reputable source somewhere. If they haven't, I don't see how it makes our encyclopedia more credible to include that you think so. Even were you a full professor with expertise in fascism, others might still disagree with you, so citing a source (and any disagreeing sources) would still be appropriate. My point is, I agree with WP:NOR, even when it's a pain for me to deal with (I've had to cite things that I knew were facts too). You don't have to cite every little thing, unless it's disputed, and then you do. Whether you like it or not, No original research is part of the Wikipedia:Five pillars, and it will not change.
Case 1 was the only thing I was referring to, I'm keenly aware about Case 2 and its context. Hell, I don't even think that the NPA rule has any basis in an article itself, but hey I just thought that was assumed. Kade00:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, there are some statements you can make that, even if true, do not contribute to our goal of making a better encyclopedia. Warning other users that someone habitually violates the rules is helpful; warning other users that someone is trying to push a particular POV into articles is helpful; stating that the person is a fascist is never going to be as far as I can tell. I'm not sure I have more to say than that. -- SCZenz09:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary you put when you excised a passage from the L. Paul Bremer article said:
"Struck comment with no other form of reliable quotation except Indymedia. It's Indymedia, for godsakes."
You seem to think it is sufficient to imply you have a good reason for your edit, rather than actually supply a good reason. I have a big problem with implying stuff is so obvious it doesn't need to be explained. In my experience this is precisely the stuff that it is most important to try to explain.
So, what, exactly, did you have a problem with that the passage you excised?
How closely did you read the paragraph you excised? It contains several cites from the Indymedia. I added the initial citation from Bremer's speech Clark University. Another wikipedian, who wants the Paul Bremer article to be a hagiography, added the passage about how many protestors were present at the talk. That you clipped just one reference from the Indymedia strongly suggests that it was not really the messenger you had a problem with, but rather the message.
Did you bother to follow the link? It is a reprint from the student newspaper. Bremer had been lecturing all over the USA. It is unreasonable to expect big newspapers to cover every talk. Further, the article says that Bremer's agreement with the Universities was that no press would be allowed.
EDITOR'S NOTE: STRAWMAN FOLLOWS.
I've met two kinds of American patriots. Some American patriots give their loyalty to the high principles America is famous for -- things like free speech, freedom of association, the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. Other American's who identify themselves as patriots give their loyalty to patriotic symbols of America... The flag, the anthem, the President, the Statue of Liberty. These outward symbols are not really America. You can always get a new anthem. You have gone through a dozen different flags. The Statue of Liberty might corrode away. Or, heaven forbid, might suffer some other kind of disaster. They are just symbols. America would endure fine without them. But take away those high principles -- and what you have left isn't really America, even if you keep the flag, anthem, etc.
In my experience those two kinds of patriots react differently to news stories that might reflect poorly on American officials or their policies.
The first kind aren't going to accept any old critical story without some scrutiny. But if it holds up to initial scrutiny, they openly examine it, even if it is painful. Their loyalty is to American principles. If there is a real problem, if an official is betraying American ideals, with, lets say, torture, or allowing an occupied country to be stripped of $9 billion by foreign carpetbaggers, they want to fix the problem. They want to restore America's reputation by getting to the bottom of problems, and rooting them out.
In my experience, the other kind of patriot, the patriot who is loyal to the surface facade of America, and who isn't really concerned with principles, aren't really interested in getting to the bottom of instances that could be interpreted as reflecting poorly on America's reputation. Since their loyalty to America is just a surface loyalty, to the surface appearance of America, actually fixing the problems isn't necessary. Since they are only interested in preserving America's reputation, obfuscating, denying or covering up instances they think reflect poorly on America's reputation is easier for them, and they are just as satisfied with the result.
So, do you think my breakdown of American patriotism holds any merit? And, if so, which kind of patriot do you want to be?
One doesn't have to be an American to honour the same principles as America's founding fathers. In writing about this "war on terror" I get challenges from American patriots. I have written, in several places, about the policy of treating captive in the war on terror as if they were not protected by either the Geneva Conventions or the US Constitution. I have called this a "Bush administration policy". And I have had a number of different American patriots change that to "US Government policy", calling the previous wording "anti-American". I reply to those edits by pointing out that the US government has three branches. The three branches each have oversight responsibilities over the other two branches; provide checks and balances on the other two branches; and their are instances where they can over-rule them. The judicial branch of the US Government has already over-ruled the executive branch. Additional aspects of the detainee policy are before the courts now, and could also be over-ruled. Further, there are initiatives, in Congress, to modify the detainee policy. So, calling the detainee policy a US government policy is simply incorrect. It is the expression that represents a biased POV.
EDITOR'S NOTE: END OF STRAWMAN.
I don't blame Americans who want to preserve America's reputation. I don't blame them for not accepting accounts of incidents that may appear to reflect poorly on America's reputation, without question. But, after reading the link you cut, do you really have doubts that Bremer uttered the phrase the Indymedia article attributed to him? Are you -really- accusing the student author of simply making that quote up, out of whole cloth? -- Geo Swan12:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Too long; didn't read. If the quote is from a student newspaper, link to the student newspaper, not Indymedia. The idea that protesters were present at Bremer's speech is not an outlandish thing to assume. The idea that Paul Bremer said such a crazy thing and you have only Indymedia to support your claim IS an outlandish thing, however. The burden of proof is higher, and if you weren't too busy writing 15 pages on how I'm clearly a rose-tinted glasses "patriot", you would understand that.
A student newspaper would have things like, you know, an Editor. Somebody who says "What the fuck?" when he reads shit like "Paul Bremer said something which would likely piss off a huge amount of people". Indymedia does not have that, and refuses to have that. Going there for any form of media coverage that isn't absurdly ludicrous is an exercise in futility. All media outlets have biases, I'm aware, but there's slants, and then there's just knocking the entire wall over. Either find something more corroborating or let it slide, you have more than enough evidence on Bremer to call him a douchebag without having to rely on places which have no interest in objectivity. Kade16:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You suggested you might like to research the relationship of fascism and socialism, and that you had a rather serious misunderstanding regarding it. Fascism#Early_history would be a good place to start, followed by Fascio, Fascism and ideology, and Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts#Nazism_and_socialism. Socialism_and_Fascism might also be useful, if only to underscore the point in a humorous fashion. Let me know if you'd like to discuss the various particulars, or would appreciate more assistance. Cheers, Sam Spade 17:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC
My mistake, I thought you were trying to establish that Socialism and Fascism were very similarly linked in more than just they were both authoritarian. Kade18:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only in coincidental ways. I'm sorry Sam, and I hope you know I'm approaching this in the most polite way I can, but I strongly disagree with those notions. Fascism and Socialism are at diametrically opposed ends, practically everything about them screams opposites. Fascism advocates the people as working for the benefit of the state, Socialism advocates the state as working for the benefit of the people completely. Fascism constantly portrays itself as striving to restore greatness (Mussolini's Rome, the Third Reich, Japanese references to the old empire, and use of the old Bushido code), while Socialism paints things in terms of the future and the utopian ideal. Etc., etc., etc...I could go on and on at length. At the same time, I don't think you can lump them under the same category and therefore profess a similarity simply because both were totalitarian, absolutist states. So was the Athenian Republic, even though it was democratic. Socrates' philosopher king method of government also would fall under this heading. So as you can see, I mean, it's just bad from a categorical standpoint, when you can see that Socrates' technocracy and the Athenian Democracies are somewhat benevolent, even if authoritarian. Kade22:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And I often do ;) Hitler and Mussolini were very modern, restoring little. Of course you are partially correct about differences of propoganda, but it is far more subtle than you might think. Both Stalin and Mussolini experimented w modern art style propaganda before realising that hitlers Populist approach was more successful. It wasn't long into the war that Stalin gave up any pretense of opposition to nationalism, clearly encouraging his soldiers to fight for mother russia. This is all just politics tho, intentionally distracting glamor. Have a long hard look at the roots, the economics, the strategy of seizing power. Sam Spade22:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Between you and I? I wouldn't mind ceding that kind of an argument. They're both the same in practice, fine, it's only the ideology that's different. TECHNICALLY we're confusing two forms of political thought with their real-world counterparts, but even I don't pretend that's something I ever respect. Political ideologies are built on the state, so it's the only resource you have for judging the pros and cons of each one. But I digress....we could go at length in how all political ideologies are ultimately self-serving to the entity of the state, rather than of the individual (or the people, if you're more of a socialist). But I don't like to confuse people as soon as they meet me, so I just say they're different. Kade22:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sam pointed me to this discussion, and I'd like to chime in. The ideological differences between fascism and socialism (class collaboration vs. class struggle, idealism vs. materialism, "triumph of the will" vs. economic determinism, and, most of all, hierarchy vs. equality) are very numerous and, I hope, well known to you. It has been pointed out that fascism in practice was somewhat similar to Stalinism in practice. This idea has some merit, but since when is Stalinism the model of socialism? Do not ignore the existence of Libertarian socialism, Democratic Socialism and Trotskyism, among others. Comparisons of fascism and socialism often give the impression that the two are clearly defined monolithic movements, when in reality fascism is a vague concept and socialism is riddled with cracks and schisms. On a final note, I must point out that a state controlled economy is not a defining feature of socialism, because (1) not all socialists endorse it, and (2) state controlled economies were around thousands of years before socialism. The defining feature of socialism is economic egalitarianism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu19:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How can that egalitarianism be achieved without control? It's like apologizing for autocracy by saying your ideology can't be executed any other way. Kade18:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And hence the Libertarian query: If I, right this second, redistribute the wealth of the world to everybody equally right this second, then 500 people all buy tickets to a music concert, then suddenly those rockers are the wealthiest people in the world. What then? More coercive force? "Libertarian Socialism" is a euphemism, at best. Kade00:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to refer you both to comments I made here. I think we can agree that in its rhetoric socialism emphasises egalitarianism (despite barbarically rejecting it in practice), while fascism, however populist, never suggests a complete lack of hierarchy. Sam Spade05:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no universally agreed upon "socialism in practice". Some say that welfare states are socialist. Other say that communist states are socialist. Yet others say that socialism has never been applied in practice. In any case, since equality is the very heart and soul of socialism, saying that socialism rejects equality in practice is like saying that socialism rejects socialism in practice. If X rejects equality, then X is not socialist. End of story. All socialists agree with this. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu11:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does it necessarily reject lies in theory. The notion of honesty is sometimes considered a relic of "bourgeois ethics," which revolutionaries are right to reject. --Christofurio15:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can empathise with the whole British v American spelling thing, but there are better ways of putting things. FOOTBALL NOT SOCCER YOU STUPID YANKS, AND IT'S COLOUR, NOT COLOR could have been better worded, could it not? -- Francs200018:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... Just be careful because you don't know who else has taken that seriously and exactly what that's going to spur them to do. -- Francs200018:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping w that impatient 7th grader... I have to sleep sometime! Anyways, about fascism and socialism, the only way I think we can put socialism on the left and fascism on the right is if we define the terms based on ideological differences regarding egalitarianism vrs. hierarchy. Fascists clearly believe in hierarchy, wheras socialists claim not to. While social democrats lean a bit towards egalitarianism in practice, the results (even in sweden or etc...) are actually far from it. And of course state communism isn't much different from feudalism when you ignore the rhetoric and look at the lives of its citizens. Sam Spade15:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A point sometimes neglected is that both fascism and Marxist forms of socialism are derivatives of Hegelianism. Hegel, as you probably know, idealized the Prussian state of his own day, believing in to be the synthesis of authority and liberty to which history had been leading. It has been too easy for subsequent generations, trained by Hegel in this combination of boot-licking with dialectical lingo, to show that whatever structure of power they idealized was likewise the synthesis of those partial theses that came before it, so that opponents aren't just critics, they are objectively backwards, working against human history itself, and ought to be consigned to the "dustbin of history" (to use Trotsky's phrase). In all this, the brown Hegelians and the red Hegelians are close akin. --Christofurio21:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And like so many of those who are "close akin" (Orange and green Irish, Jews and Arabs, Greeks and Turks, etc...) they hate each other bitterly. There seems to be something about people nearly exactly like ourselves (to outsiders), but with some "significant" difference by insiders perceptions that drives people to acts of extraordinary barbarism. Sam Spade16:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. PTO05:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I thought I was fairly clear on what content of his I was criticizing. Calling him shit for brains was an afterthought. Kade05:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Next time you want to go on a childish personal attack parade, consider that this is an encyclopedia you are contributing. Considering your history of personal attacks, and your few productive edits, your next block is likely to be indefinite. Dmcdevit·t06:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an encyclopedia. Brittanica is an encyclopedia. Brittanica doesn't choose to employ lying pissants as a reward for their duplicitous behavior. This online "encyclopedia", you self-righteous inbred piece of shit, is a caricature. It's what an encyclopedia would look like if the Soviets had won the Cold War, complete with disappearing paper trails and mass-deletion of information that those in charge consider double plus ungood. Kade06:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Troll is a cute word used to describe anybody who criticizes you or any of your e-friends. Jimbo Wales is using it on people who are criticizing Essjay's blatant bullshit, and so are you. Kade07:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kade, on what grounds do you allege that Essjay has not put forward an accurate resume this time around? If you have diffs or sound reasoning, make it plain. John Vandenberg07:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken. It is starting to look like the revised profile had issues, but that article has only confirmed that "Ryan Jordan" didnt study at U of L and hasnt worked at United States Trustee Program. He could have worked at a private trustee under their jurisdiction, and/or "Ryan Jordan" may be a pen name with all the other details 100% accurate (in spite of the wolf). I guess what I am saying is that there are other explanations for the discrepancies, and that we need to exercise caution in order to not be guilty of false accusations. John Vandenberg01:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
for having the most amusing talk page on wikipedia, among other things hehe. friggen hilarious. keep up the good work Maîtresse01:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Virginia Tech massacre, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. W guice01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing personal attacks and incivility ("Blow me, fascist." ?) right after your last month-long ban for personal attacks and incivility had ended is not conducive to remaining a Wikipedia project contributor. You're blocked for 3 months to prevent further such attacks.
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
18:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User_talk:Night_Gyr, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Iamunknown 00:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Man Murray (2nd nomination). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Kade, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
