User talk:Plushpuffin/Archive 1

Archive 1

DON'T YOU EVER REPORT ME AGAIN

Note: the following topic references this topic on the administrator's noticeboard archive page. -- plushpuffin (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

MY CLAIMS WERE BACKED BY SOURCES. I MADE NO VIOLATION OF THE NPOV POLICY. I WILL REPORT YOU FOR HARRASSMENT IF YOU CONTINUE TO DO THIS NONSENSE. ALL I DID WAS EDIT THE ARTICLE SO IT WOULD BE ADJUSTED TO FIT THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW POLICY. YOU TAKE YOUR BIAS PRO-OBAMA FILTH ELSEWHERE, BECAUSE WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT. I HOPE THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME I WILL HAVE TO TALK TO YOU.Kevin j (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, YOU ARE SHOWING YOU ARE A NONSENSE PRO-OBAMA PROPAGANDIST. YOU'VE EVEN CONFESSED YOU'RE LIBERAL ON YOUR USER PAGE. THERE'S ALSO NOTHING ON WIKIPEDIA THAT CAN DISGARD 20 EDITS TO 5 SENTENCES EITHER. YOU'RE JUST SMACKING PUDDY FOR NOTHING. KEEP YOUR OPINIONS TO YOURSELF AND STAY OUT OF MY WAYKevin j (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I know the politics of Obama, and they're pretty liberal. Me, I'm a moderate who doesn't like dirty tricks from either side of the political track. The media's hype of Obama this past season has made Wikipedia's Bill Clinton page easy ground for slander. I was only reverting things on the page so they would remain neutral. For example, content on the page made it seem like Clinton was the bad guy in the Paula Jones case. It's a typical dirty trick that either Obama or Republican supporters would put in the article.Kevin j (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

NO BIAS. JUST NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. DON'T LOOK AT MY TALK PAGE AND MAKE BIAS ASSUMPTIONS YOURSELF. YOU DoN'T KNOW ME, WHAT I HAVE DONE, OR HOW I HAVE WRITTEN. I HOPE THIS IS THE LAST TIME I HAVE TO TALK TO YOUKevin j (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have put a warning on Kevin's talk page. If he writes all caps again, tries to argue or attempt to argue the motives of other editors, or just generally make personal insults at all, please inform me and I'll make it clear that that kind of conduct is not appreciated here. Ignore his threats and do not get intimidated by him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed some of his edits (the Clinton page needs work by people with a better grasp of WP:LIVINGBIO requirements) and I'm worried about Sally Perdue but I'll watch him. Next time, I would suggest focusing your report on the all caps language and quoting specific edit summaries. That would be far more effective than getting into a "I'm neutral/no, you are not argument" (which is really a content dispute and would normally be ignored at the noticeboard). Notice that I do not particular care about what he wrote, just how he interacted with others. I'll leave what he wrote for others to take apart, as they should. He's been here long enough that he really should know better. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir, you need to stop this nonsense My edit about Sally Perdue did not violate the neutral point of view policy in anyway, and they were backed by a reliable resource. KEEP YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT HOW THINGS SUCH BE WRIITEN TO YOURSELF. THERE IS NO WIKIPEDIA POLICY THAT FORBIDS ME FROM WRITING THE WAY I WROTE.Kevin j (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Plushpuffin, you're the subject of an AN thread right now, if you want to comment. Link: [1] --barneca (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know

I don't mind informing people about those types of notices. It's just I have never been informed before when various ego-centric vandals have brought my name up and I find it suspicous that Barneca did so for you.Kevin j (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Barneca (and most of the other people whom you have insulted, threatened, and harassed today) are administrators. He notified me because he constantly monitors that noticeboard. He would have done the same for you if I had neglected to inform you. -- plushpuffin (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Warning

Please do not stop removing unreferenced controversial biographical content from articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Bill Clinton. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If the top of your head flips up and your brain flops out onto the keyboard, or your hands are spontaneously possessed by the devil, resulting in a complete reversal of your past behaviour regarding this policy, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Blatant advert

Hello Plushpuffin. I was on a short Wikibreak and just got your message. You're right, and I've deleted that page under WP:CSD#G11. Thanks for the heads up. — Satori Son 15:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Order of smile

Thanks for the notification - apparently by checking the logs the commons image have been deleted due to a dodgy case of copyright violation (which commons have a tendency to steer clear of) so I have removed it from the page. --Deryck C. 20:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)