User talk:Cmoti

User Reported

Belteshezzar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has deleted key information from this article twice already without properly citing references. --Cmoti 22:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the purpose of my edits were to remove bias and potential libel. You seem emotionally attached to this article and reporting me for vandalism is totally misplaced and deviant. You should again see that I removed those remarks for bias and libel and welcome debate, not a fight. --Belteshezzar 19:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the purpose of my edits were to remove bias and potential libel. You seem emotionally attached to this article and reporting me for vandalism is totally misplaced and deviant. You should again see that I removed those remarks for bias and libel and welcome debate, not a fight. --Belteshezzar 19:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Do not vandalize my talk page with false sock puppet tags. This will not be tolerated and you will be blocked if you continue. You are edit warring on the al gore page and have been reverted by multiple editors. STOP. Turtlescrubber

What do you mean by fake? How do you explain this?:

(cur) (last) 22:07, 17 October 2007 1of3 (Talk | contribs) m (21,714 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Cmoti; One obviously adjendized news story is not a controversy. using TW) (undo)

This user is a sock puppet of Nrcprm2026, and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

Cmoti 13:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf, it's a sockpuppet. Who knows. Who cares. If you are accusing me of sockpuppetry than you should just say so. No waffling, either accuse me or don't. Btw, that sockpuppet tag is a linking tag and should not be pasted on every page. Turtlescrubber 14:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said it, not me. Let the evidence speak for itself. Wtf YPOCS. Cmoti 18:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said what? You're really making some erratic edits. YPOCS? Turtlescrubber —Preceding comment was added at 04:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rr on Al Gore Controversies

You have violated 3rr. Please stop editing on the page and/or start using the talk page. Please stop edit warring, you have been reverted by multiple editors. Thanks. Turtlescrubber 00:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring on the Al Gore controversies page. Also, DO NOT leave uncivil comments and accusations on my talk page. I understand that you may be having a bad day or maybe you are frustrated. However, that is no reason to take it out on me. You have been reverted by 4 or 5 other editors. Continuing to edit war may get you blocked. Not up to me of course. Turtlescrubber 23:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not having a bad day. But I think you and your gang of biased editors are spinning this article in favor of Gore, why I don't know. Again, my information on Al Gore's usage of private luxury jets was deleted when the news source is real and verifiable, without any proper argument or explanation why the info should be deleted.

And guess what? Not surprisingly your merry band of editors are getting banned one by one:

(cur) (last) 22:07, 17 October 2007 1of3 (Talk | contribs) m (21,714 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Cmoti; One obviously adjendized news story is not a controversy. using TW) (undo)

This user is a sock puppet of Nrcprm2026, and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

DO NOT delete my edits again without proper explanation or argument or I will report you for vandalism.

Cmoti 11:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper explanation for the deletion of your edits has been repeatedly provided in the edit summaries. As the title clearly shows, the Al Gore controversies article exists to detail known controversies surrounding Al Gore. Any information added to this article should be NPOV, properly sourced to a reliable source, and definitively shown to have been a controversy. Your edit was POV-riddled and sourced only to a YouTube video. Most importantly, one complaint from one Fox "News" reporter does not equal a controversy. On my talk page, you demanded that Hume's whining should be included here because it should be left up for "the reader to decide" whether its a controversy or not. It doesn't work that way. To avoid NPOV problems, among other issues, any new topics/information written to this article should be proven to have caused controversy. Otherwise this will simply devolve into a litany of complaints. Also, you need to stop threatening other editors. Familiarize yourself with wikipedia's civility and good faith policies. Instead of throwing out accusations, you need to read exactly what wikipedia defines as vandalism. And try to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's NPOV policy.-Hal Raglan 13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the sock puppet deleting my stuff then. Cmoti 13:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help you out there, sorry. I can't offer explanations for any other editor. If that person is a confirmed sockpuppet, he/she is probably banned from any future editing.-Hal Raglan 13:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The 4-Hour Workweek

An article that you have been involved in editing, The 4-Hour Workweek, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 4-Hour Workweek. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]