User talk:Vanished user oerjio4kdm3

Educational and tasty!

The Beginning

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Barack Obama. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thegoodlocust. I think you may have misinterpreted something that Grsz did. When you wrote a long multi-paragraph reply, he replied to each paragraph in turn instead of replying in a block. People do that sometimes here. Then he realized that he hadn't signed each paragraph, so it might be unclear to other readers who was saying what. That's why he added his signature — unfortunately, he mistakenly added his signature to one paragraph that was yours instead of his. In the interest of maintaining civil discussion, it might be good if you were to restore his comments, either where they were (in response to yours) or as a separate block, after your long comment. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind — I see that he restored the comments while I was writing the above. I've removed his stray signature from your text, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it seemed really off for him to do that, and without inserting my own signature, it looks quite confusing. Initially, when he did it, he didn't sign all his statements, and made it look like things had been attributed to myself that I had not written. Additionally, I didn't like how he was deleting my own text, specifically, I told him not to modify my own comment.

I just don't understand why he couldn't reply in one single comment, rather than uselessly parsing everything. Also, keep in mind, he attacked me first with his ad hominem attacks about me being a new user and therefore, supposedly, devaluing my input. Thegoodlocust (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There's some truth there, but I'm afraid that "he started it!" isn't an acceptable defense outside of elementary school. (You'll notice that I removed some comments of his as well as yours when the two of you strayed further into personal attack territory.) Grsz was failing to assume good faith, and biting a new user — and I was probably too soft in dealing with that. But that doesn't excuse you calling his character into question. Let's just try to focus on the article, instead of each other. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there were short fuses on both sides there, and a few little misunderstandings erupted into something disproportionate. If you don't mind, I'm going to remove the last section of the talk page — would you prefer to have it kept here, or is it OK if it just remains in the talk page's history? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it, I'm honestly surprised the minor edits I suggested were so hostility received. There are much more relevant, but controversial things I'd like to see added to the article that go beyond mere phrasing. Thegoodlocust (talk) 07:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the well at that article has been poisoned by a steady stream of trolls and sockpuppets, so the long-time editors are too ready to jump on any new face. (Did you notice the joker earlier tonight who asked why the article didn't have Obama's name in Arabic?) I'm not excusing Grsz's hostility, just letting you know that there's a context to it. (Of course, that's what Obama said in his speech, and that hasn't satisfied his most vocal critics either...) :-)

There are also a couple of long-lasting, more major disputes going on on that talk page (specifically, how much space the article should give to Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, and how to express various rankings of Obama's record in the Senate on the political spectrum). You're welcome to join those discussions too, if you're feeling up to it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. I hope all is well. It's very hard to explain this edit as a result of user error. If my analysis is mistaken, please forgive me, but as you note this is a highly volatile topic (IMHO) in which editors must be very careful in discussion and project pages. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

The edit summary associated with this edit is inappropriate. Edit summaries are intended to summarize either the content or editorial intent of the edit. While using edit summaries is strongly encouraged, please refrain from using edit summaries which are nonsense, misleading, non-descriptive of your edit or uncivil toward other users. Please keep in mind that I found nothing wrong with the edit itself. I am just reminding you of the appropriate use of edit summaries. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a joke, sort of, my dog needed to pee as I was finishing up and so I wrote that in quickly so I could finish posting (I'd turned on the edit reminder) - it seemed faster to type that in than click, wait for it to reload and tell me to make an edit summary and the click save again. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It made me chuckle. Just go to My Preferences, click on the editing tab and uncheck the box that says "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". That way you don't even have to put an edit summary for talk page edits. Hope that helps. --Ubiq (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I did, I just wanted a reminder about it since I'm fairly new and I'd just read about it somewhere. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Obama FAR

Hi there, I am just writing to inform you that we have apparently been conducting the Barack Obama FAR incorrectly. Your vote of "keep" or "remove" should be struck out and reinserted when the nomination moves into FARC (per the directions at WP:FAR). I was just notified of this myself; please see the bottom of the FAR page for more. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

TheGoodLocust, the proper statement in the featured Article Review is "Close and move to FARC." The term "FARC" represents "Featured Article Removal candidate." In my opinion, attempting to improve the article is useless because there are too many people who like the hagiography just the way it is. Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the suggestions. I'll go look at it later though since it looks like there is another false attempt at getting me blocked. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

hi

look at my post. if you agree, feel free to use the source. 116.12.165.227 (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=203674181&oldid=203673852

Thanks

For your passion and your tenacity in editing Wikipedia. Please assume good faith on the part of other editors. Edison (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

A lot of the content you're adding to the State legislature section really should be included in the article, or at least in the new sub-article, but the problem seems to be with how you are wording your additions. In this edit[1], your wording is implying that it was Obama's legal challenges that created the division, when the source seems to implying that Obama's decision to stay in the race is what caused the division, not the legal challenges. Also, if you had continued to read the source, you would have found on the fourth and fifth pages that such legal challenges are common in Chicago and that the other candidates had actually made several critical mistakes in collecting their signatures (namely using old voting records to validate, not having enough time to actually do the validation properly, and getting swindled by their paid signature gatherers). There doesn't seem to be any wrong doing in what Obama did, but the way in which you worded it does imply that Obama did something wrong by challenging the signatures. Of course, that doesn't mean what you added shouldn't be in the article, just that the wording is troublesome and that if it had been worded in a more neutral fashion and included some explanation beyond just the negative aspects, it probably would have been more palatable to the other editors on the article. The big thing to remember is that while NPOV does say we should include things that are positive and negative of the article's subject, it also says that the wording that we use should be neutral as well. My suggestion is that you try to include both sides of the argument and try to make the wording a bit more neutral. If you do that, chances are you'll improve the likelihood of what you're adding staying in the article unmodified. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:TheGoodLocust.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheGoodLocust.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

New version of Wright paragraph

I've worked on a new version of the Wright paragraph in Barack Obama, and I'd be interested in your thoughts at Talk:Barack Obama#New attempt by Josiah. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Mccurley

I ask that you create a hyper link for Digicrime.com, which is at Kevin Mccurley. Thank you. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mispelling

I spelled Kevin Mccurley wrong. Just look it up in the search box to get the right spelling. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Answer

To make a hyperlink in the article of Kevin Mccurley. To make the hyperlink for Digicrime.com Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Reason

I want you to do it because I don't know how. Make the hyperlink connect to www.digicrime.com. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WD

What? You think I'm going to get "in trouble" for swearing? Grsz^X 05:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

I have already cautioned you about avoiding personal attacks, civility, assuming good faith, and article probation on the Barack Obama pages. This edit[2] is abusive. Please desist at once - if you continue an administrator reviewing your edits may block you from further editing the encyclopedia, or ban you from the affected article pages, in order to prevent further disruption. I will provide a templated article probation notice, below. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Palin

You've been gone for awhile, I would suggest reading the archives before editing. The Bridges section has been discussed again and again and again. Going in slicing and dicing isn't going to help and will just be reverted. Grsz^X 21:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please watch your language on talk pages. "Bullshit" is not appropriate language for Wikipedia and could result in your being reported if such language continues on this encylopedia. Thanks! 45Factoid44 (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Brothejr (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin to warn people. I am an admin, and I will block you if you revert again. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The first time was not a revert - I changed the source since the other guy didn't like the source. I did however revert it after that since he flat out deleted it without giving a single reason why. Where is your warning to him? TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, and I am sorry for not paying closer attention. I am happy to see that you have started to talk it out. Again, I apologize for my erroneous warning. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption

Stop now - if you continue disrupting the encyclopedia, as you are doing at Talk:Barack Obama and Barack Obama, an administrator may block or ban you from further editing. Wikidemon (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And do not troll my talk page.[3] Wikidemon (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New AN/I posting

I posted an AN/I request here regarding those three if you wish to contribute. I'm sorry you're being ganged up on like that. It isn't right. Digital^Ninja 03:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

96 hours. Please read WP:TE (not to mention WP:FRINGE, WP:BLP and WP:TALK) and review your own editing in the light of these guidelines and policies. Moreschi (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Very classy - I guess I know where your political affiliations lie since, not only didn't you give me a warning, but you haven't done jack to deal with the other editors who're suppressing perfectly valid and sourced information in that article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think Obama's manifesto is pretty lousy and Palin's ass is awesome. I'm English so pretty apathetic anyway. Nope, no conspiracy, you're just disruptive. Please accept that reality and then alter it by modifying your appalling conduct. Moreschi (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you have anything specific in mind or are you just declaring your neutrality?I added "a sister organization to ACORN," which was well-sourced and relevant. It isn't my fault they want to keep out any reference to ACORN out of the article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vanished user oerjio4kdm3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

First of all, I'm not entirely innocent in this in that I have been a bit harsh with some people. That being said, this block is ridiculous. Not only wasn't I warned, but every edit I've made to the Barack Obama page has used good sources, which are both relevant to the page, correct inaccuracies, or provide context. I suspect, from reading the ANI report I was discussing, which I did not start, that the administrator who blocked me, simply read the accusations but didn't review the evidence - he succumbed to "group think" from others who'd not reviewed the evidence. I am confident that, while not perfect, my actions did not rise to levels stated. You will notice, that I was blocked after reverting an edit that I made since the reverting editor reverted both an edit by myself and another editor. I was assuming good faith in that he had removed it, not on its merits, but because it was easier for him to revert both edits rather than being more selective. I had added that, "which is a sister organization to ACORN" to the section, which was true, sourced well, and very relevant for those who follow these things. If you have any more questions, then please ask, since I'm not used to this.

Decline reason:

Regardless of the specific straw that broke the camel's back, your actions show a clear pattern of tendentious editing and you display the characteristics of being a single-purpose account. This block is appropriate, and you should take the opportunity to review your habits, and consider whether you can edit in a more collaborative fashion, possibly on other subjects. The article probation for Barack Obama states that "Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, banned by an administrator from this and related articles and pages, and/or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia." This block is in accordance with that statement. — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Josiah Rowe has a well-known bias and agenda regarding this article - this unblock rejection is frankly crap

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vanished user oerjio4kdm3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As you can see from here the previous admin who very quickly rejected the unblock request has a history with the Barack Obama stuff as well as a friendship with several of the involved parties. I only know this because last time I was here he was pushing his agenda. His refusal to unblock is completely unwarranted and he should've recused himself. Here is my previous statement from the last request: First of all, I'm not entirely innocent in this in that I have been a bit harsh with some people. That being said, this block is ridiculous. Not only wasn't I warned, but every edit I've made to the Barack Obama page has used good sources, which are both relevant to the page, correct inaccuracies, or provide context. I suspect, from reading the ANI report I was discussing, which I did not start, that the administrator who blocked me, simply read the accusations but didn't review the evidence - he succumbed to "group think" from others who'd not reviewed the evidence. I am confident that, while not perfect, my actions did not rise to levels stated. You will notice, that I was blocked after reverting an edit that I made since the reverting editor reverted both an edit by myself and another editor. I was assuming good faith in that he had removed it, not on its merits, but because it was easier for him to revert both edits rather than being more selective. I had added that, "which is a sister organization to ACORN" to the section, which was true, sourced well, and very relevant for those who follow these things. If you have any more questions, then please ask, since I'm not used to this.

Decline reason:

If you actually want to try being a Wikipedian, you must understand that trying to hijack it for political purposes and then screaming foul when someone calls you out on it and blocks you makes you look more like a political crank than an editor. Unblock declined. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I also reviewed this block but I edit conflicted with Jeske. I'm going to post my comment here anyway so that you know multiple admins have looked at it.

I'm Australian, have limited interest in American politics, have never edited these articles or with the editors involved in this dispute, and I endorse this block and agree with Josiah's comments above. I think you should sit this block out and use the time to rethink your behaviour here. When the block expires, I would encourage you to edit less controversial articles until you get more experience and a better understanding of our polices. If you continue editing in this way you are going to end up being banned as a tendentious single purpose account. — Sarah 23:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if there were actually examples rather than being accused, largely without merit of about 6 different violations. Funny how these accusations rarely involve any specificity since it is possible to refute specific claims rather than vague accusations. I'm frankly sickened by the lot of you. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Proof the banning editor was biased

Here and here he was rebuked for participating in similar behavior that I was fighting against, and get this, it was on the Sarah Palin page. Obviously the blocking editor is too involved with his own POV issues to be blocking editors who oppose him idea-logically. Of course, the admins around here seem to stick together no matter what, brush off accountability and refuse to provide specific reasons for banning. Just admit it - you want to shut up people you disagree with. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, the blocking editor once edited an article that you did! It's invald! Revert now. Grsz^X 03:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalking me now are you? He has posted many times regarding Sarah Palin - and with incident. He also does this passive-aggresive legalese crap that you and the rest of your goon squad participate in. No wonder he sided with you people even though you've been twice as bad as I have. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Any more bad faith accusations and disruption and I will protect your talk page. Understand? You were banned because you are being disruptive and because you blatantly violated the article probation. Continuous disruption is not going to improve your situation. --Smashville^talk 03:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize, I didn't mean to point out that the person blocking me, and the first person who refused to block me both had vested interests in the article. And, PLEASE accept my apology for using my own talk space to talk - did Grss1 "alert" you to my misbehavior or were you stalking..ahem...I mean, "keeping an eye" on me just on your own recognizance? You people keep on throwing out that I'm not assuming good faith, but when the people involved have agendas it is only natural for my "good faith" to evaporate.

And where the hell have your warnings of Grss1 been? He's been antagonistic from the start of all of this. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And I got hit for it. What else? Grsz^X 03:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You got "hit" for it? Funny how I don't see any warning or bans for you despite your language and treatment. You and your WP:GANG with your WP:GAMEing the system win again. I bet you swell with pride every time you chase people away from wikipedia - do you keep notches in your belt for every ban you goad people into implementing? You are plainly biased in regards to this election, which explains your refusal to allow any dissent in the articles - move to Iran since you seem to value such censorship.TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ha, funny, because there's a pretty wide consensus that you're just a SPA with no good intentions other than to piss people off and try and push your garbage ideas. Grsz^X 04:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I haven't edited Obama in months, so I'm not sure how I have any weight on what's being put in that article. Grsz^X 04:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "consensus" by you and your buds, who take turns keeping the Barack Obama article "pristine" - I notice you didn't even deny your bias. So how long hve you worked with that Smashguy - does he regularly throw his admin weight around in your favor? It looks that way from the history files. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've ever directly interacted with Smashville before. Able to point out what you're blabbing about? Grsz^X 04:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I found once, about a completely unrelated issue. Grsz^X 04:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes "unrelated" - thanks for clearing this up. Just another "accident" where you provoke someone and then Smashtalk bans them? TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No actually, it was an issue about a username. Don't pretend like you a damn thing that you're talking about. Is there anything linking me to your block? Or is that just another one of your endless attempts to deflect blame from your own behavior? Grsz^X 04:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand you harassed that guy too until he got banned - this seems to be your MO. As for my block, is there a link? I find it curious that right after you show up with your smarmy attitude an admin shows up to threaten me. Too bad there isn't full transparency with all the emails you people do between each other. Not only that, this entire thing was started by you and your WP: CABAL of pro-Obama anti-Palin nuts that want to control the dissemniation of all knowledge. You can't even deny your bias because you know its true. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I, and most others, can't even help but to laugh at you. You blame everybody else for your poor behavior. You should probably reflect on that. You are the one trying to add content that has consistently been pointed out in violation under WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, etc. I'm not even sure you really care for it be there. Your sole intention and purpose here is to be disruptive. That's why this block is so hard for you to grasp. Somebody has finally called out your behavior, and your natural response is to turn around and point your fingers at everybody else. It's pathetic to the point that it's humorous. Well, it's your choice I suppose, and you're paying for it now I guess. Carry on how you wish, I'm wiping my hands of you. Cheers, Grsz^X 04:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad to be done with you. The problem is you people always say I'm violating BLP and FRINGE, but you can never seem to back up that I've made any edits that violate these policies. I HAVE made edits that violate your personal, pro-Obama, anti-McCain policy - which, I noticed, you still can't even deny your bias. Why don't you deny it? One more lie really isn't going to hurt now is it?TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm registered Libertarian, a conservative party. Grsz^X 04:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny how anyone reading your talk page,unless you whitewash it, will notice your pattern of provoking others and how others have noticed your clear partisan bias. Hey, on a completely different note, are you related to this Grsz1 with his anti-Palin video favorited and a subscription to an anti-republican channel? Quick! You'd better run to your admin buddies so they can scrub any evidence of your bias! TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalking users off-wiki, eh? That's a real good way to get others on your side and get yourself unblocked. Good one. Grsz^X 04:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, you operate under the assumption that a YouTube video of a Sarah Palin speech implies my support of Barack Obama? On that same logic, can you fly like a real locust? Grsz^X 04:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice legalese - you don't flat out deny your bias this time, but say I'm "assuming." I guess your anti-Palin comments on her website and your anti-Palin comments on youtube are strictly restricted to being "anti-Palin" - and it has no effect on your Barack bias. Please. Go find a kid raised on paint chips if you want someone to swallow that line. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow are you digging yourself in deep here. Hilarious. Grsz^X 05:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you are furiously emailing your admin buddies to come in, save you, and whitewash this little exchange from your record. Then you can put that extra notch in your belt for another person you've gotten banned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe if you were anywhere near a decent editor, rather than a single-purpose account bent on disruption, they'd have reason to keep you around. Frankly, the community has put up with your bullshit for way to long and it's about time they take you out. Grsz^X 05:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

YOU are accusing ME of being a single purpose account? You've been keeping everything related to Obama crystal clean from Jeremiah Wright to Bill Ayers. You've been provoking me from the start and you have a RECORD of stalking people in order to provoke them. If your gang didn't have your back all the time then you would've been banned long ago. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Proof, please, or stop your accusations, Locust. Accusing people and providing zero proof of ypour accusation is a fast road to an indef ban for exhausting community patience. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 08:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]All right, just back away from the edit button. GoodLucust: you're on thin ice here I'd suggest you remove your foot from your mouth. Everyone else, let it go for now. Seriously. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 08:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Because you refuse to stop, your talk page is protected until your block expires. --Smashville^talk 16:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Barack Obama, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)