User talk:Badpuppy99

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

John B. Kimble
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. You may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --Tom (talk - email) 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. --Tom (talk - email) 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to read through other articles and the policies of Wikipedia to understand how an article should look. You are continuing to add improperly formatted material to the article in question.  Also, please see Wikipedia's policy regarding civility since you are not being constructive by calling my edits vandalism and accusing me of being in the camp of another candidate.  If you continue to disregard policy, you risk being blocked from editing. --Tom (talk - email) 23:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you draw the conclusion that the article has been reduced to a trivial level since the content between your version and mine is almost the same. However, some irrelevant material (i.e., the racial makeup of districts) has been removed, and the lengthy/unnecessary quotes section has been converted into prose, which is preferred.  Also, Kimble is a relatively minor candidate, and Wikipedia does not give undue weight to minor candidates, so the article probably should not be much longer than it is now.  This is the same reason the notability tag is at the top of the article, as not every political candidate warrants a Wikipedia article. --Tom (talk - email) 00:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He may have won primaries, but when it has come to the general elections, he has placed very distantly at best. This would be the definition of a perennial candidate, and isn't exactly an argument in favor of inclusion. --Tom (talk - email) 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of John B. Kimble for deletion
The article John B. Kimble is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/John B. Kimble until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of John B. Kimble for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John B. Kimble is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/John B. Kimble & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Syrthiss (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Warning
Repeating the smears you offered at Requests_for_undeletion is an extremely fast way to get blocked. This is a collaborative project that relies of collegiate behavior to function. Having lost the policy argument it is very disappointing that you have chosen to throw dirt at your opponents instead. In case you hadn't noticed this is a project to build an encyclopedia not a hustings. We do not accept personal attacks and unevidenced accusations of poor faith in lieu of policy based arguments. Repetition of any of the slurs you used at the above discussion will see your editing rights removed. Spartaz Humbug! 07:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There were no personal attacks left on anyone. From what I observed it appeared that the same man from 2011 who had two different names was possibly involved in the new discussions. Just reasonable suspicion.Badpuppy99 (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ..  a clique from England ... alleged editors ... nefarious actions by some wild and crazy deleters ... a certain clique or group that did not act according to wikipedia consensus ... All of this is casting aspertions on the background and motivations of users you disagree with and unevidenced smears. I'm quite taken aback (in a slightly impressed way) by your ability tio shrug off any feedback that you don't agree with. It really doesn't matter whether you agree with it, this warning is given in my administrative capacity so I strongly suggest you avoid personalising your comments in future. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 16:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * with respect, i've just come from the same discussion, & i don't see anything "personal" about the "attacks". no one is named, no one is linked to. i agree that the phrasing is a bit harsh & the complaint could actually benefit from some factual examples of the claimed problems. but how exactly IS one supposed to discuss what they believe to be improper action in manipulating a discussion? to threaten this user with a ban, for the comments cited, seems excessive.  if that's the standard for bans now, then (at least) half the community should be banned.  Lx 121 (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)