User talk:Gorgonzilla/Merecat

Merecat's modus operandi was to create sockpuppets to post messages complaining about people who had objected to his vandalism, pretending to be a neutral party who thought the accusations malicious &ct. Of course this was pretty transparent and the various socks are mostly/all banned.

The people who behave this way, they so often turn out to be already banned.

Cunningham

Cunningham template (ref "congresscritter B") has apparently been removed from the Katherine Harris article. (good luck? I haven't had much) --Flawiki 23:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The both of you are wrong here. A proper name for the events you refer to would be "MZM Scandal". Anything other than that, is POV guilt by association. Cunningham took personal bribes. The template you are using suggests that Harris has been accused of that. She has not and neither has Goode. If the both of you don't stop it, we are going to be at loggerheads. Merecat 03:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are both named in the Wade incitment and guilty plea as people that Wade admits having paid bribes to. A campaign contribution given in return for a favor is just as illegal as accepting a personal gift. So it is false to say that they have not been accused of anything by anyone. Harris is most assuredly one of the targets of the ongoing prosecution. More importantly she has been called a liar by the local press in relation to statements she made denying having asked for earmarks for Wade. You do not seem to have much support for the line of editing you have been taking. --Gorgonzilla 04:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can switch to MZM Scandal if you like, I think that at the moment the most commonly used name is Cunningham scandal. However this may well change after Wade and Mitchell are sentenced. That is not going to happen until they have completed assisting the prosecutors. --Gorgonzilla 04:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are way out of line here. Cunningham took personal bribes. Harris unwittingly received tainted campaign contributions. You have no proof of bribes or guilt againt Harris or Goode. Merecat 08:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harris accepted money then immediately requested an earmark for the donor. That is known as a B - R - I - B - E. That is why Ed Rollins, Jamie Miller and Dobson just quit her campaign. That is why there was an attempt to draft Jeb Bush in as a candidate. If you take an illegal campaign contribution, try to do a legislative favor for the donor and then lie to the press about it claiming no favor was attempted (instead of being too late to get the earmark) you get abandonded by your own party. --Gorgonzilla 12:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must CITE a RELIABLE SOURCE or else your allegation of BRIBERY is POV and also is an WP:OR violation. Merecat 21:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bribery allegation is amply sourced in the article, or rather it was until you started taking any critical statements out citing your peculiar interpretation of NPOV as being that every negative statement be balanced by a positive one. --Gorgonzilla 21:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unlawful enemy combatant

Please stop vandalizing Unlawful enemy combatant. Thank you. Merecat 20:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD tag you placed on this article did not function as there was no page for dialog. Because you did this wrong, I have deleted that tag. Merecat 20:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merecat 3RR waring again on Katherine Harris.

Merecat reverted an edit of Shalom's, then reverted my two reverts of the same thing. I am not about to file an official complaint but could you send a shot past his bows? He gives every impression of being a POV peddler. The Harris edits in particular look like they are a whitewash campaign. Case in point Ed Rollins resigns from the Harris campain then chews her out for having accepted a $2800 meal from a corrupt defense contractor, since imprisoned claiming that its not 'notable'. The article in question states that accepting a meal costing more than $50 is illegal. --Gorgonzilla 20:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking sides in a content dispute. Use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if there is a significant content dispute, or WP:AN3 if someone has broken the 3RR. Not my talk page. Stifle (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding right?

Considering your real nastiness to Merecrat, the remark you have on the top of your page is hilarious. Talk page guidelines Please respect Wikiquette, assume good faith and be nice. You're kidding right? thewolfstar 06:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith until proved otherwise. Merecat has proven otherwise. -- Gorgonzilla 14:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And no suprise, Wolfstar now blocked indefinitely, I presume as a sock of Merecat. --Gorgonzilla 20:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal blocked

You were correct on page TdF/John316. Confirmed: User:Wombdpsw has been identified as a notorious vandal using many usernames before, such as "Merecat" and "Rex071404". He's been blocked indefinitely. (see userpages or clerk's report) -- ActiveSelective 06:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]