User talk:JohnnyTwain

Katherine Anne Welles
That should be put on your user page. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Caper13 06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Rush Limbaugh
Hi Katherine. Noticed your edit to Rush Limbaugh and wanted to both welcome you and offer a comment. While the claim that Limbaugh was a catalyst for the Republican victories that year is fairly subjective (some people can claim anything), Newt wasnt so much a catalyst as he was the victor itself. Truly, Gingrich has a much bigger claim for the victory because he lead it, but Limbaugh's role is that of a supporting player and a mascot of sorts. I think the freshman class of 94 made Limbaugh an honorary member or something, didnt they, for the role they said he played in helping their victory. That is why Limbaugh is mentioned as the catalyst (a smaller role that facilitated the reaction), and not Gingrich who actually lead it. Caper13 06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre
"so much of this information is not cited and so much taken directly from newscasts and the internet over the past week." If not from newscasts, where do you think the information is going to be coming from? Considering the mass editing that's gone on, the referencing is certainly adequate. -Phoenix 06:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The Channon Christian/Christopher Newsom Hate Crimes
Keep up the good fight ensuring that the Marxists and other pc thugs don't remove everything of significance from the article. And I love that delicious sarcasm.

I'd help out, but I'm on a permanent de facto block from editing. A cadre of wikithugs gets an RSS feed every time I try to edit an article, and immediately vandalizes my edits.

I realize how paranoid that sounds, but I only know about the feed because I saw a reference to it in a discussion about me. The RSS feed was to free the thugs up from constantly checking my "contributions" page. If you check under my current IP, you won't see much because my ISP is Verizon, and my IP periodically floats. They know who I am, because I never try and disguise my ID, and because I periodically leave notes at my old talk page, at which point they alert each other.

I don't have time to waste on these characters.

The stalking campaign goes back to when I reverted their censorship of the black-on-white robbery-assault of South African writer Nadine Gordimer. In that case, the thugs were able to intimidate via thinly veiled threats other editors who also wanted the article to tell of the crime, and decided to make an example of me, as part of their campaign to censor all articles about black-on-white racial attacks, so that readers will either not know the respective races of victims and assailants or, ideally for the thugs, will not even know that the attack took place. In the Nadine Gordimer article, after agreeing to a "compromise" briefly mentioning the crime, they quickly deleted all mention of it.

They tried purging the Christian/Newsom article of all racial identifiers -- words and pictures. People finally started posting and (when the censors removed them) reposting pics, because the censors kept removing all verbal references to race. The censors then mocked the other editors for having both words and pics in the story, to try and get them to remove one, so that their work removing the rest would be easier. When that didn't work, admins took over the article for days at a time (e.g., User:FloNight, on June 8-12), butchering it. That didn't work, either, though not all of the butchering has been restored, because one of the censors helpfully "restored" the article, while keeping out some of the parts that he and his fellow censors did not want in it (e.g., references and a link to the May 14 American Renaissance article http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/05/the_knoxville_h.php ).

The most significant aspect of the wikihistory of the Christian/Newsom article is that the censors were unable to isolate, intimidate, or stalk the people who decided to work on and protect the article from them, and the good guys raised such a stink every time that the censors hit, that the latter were forced to adopt an unnaturally diplomatic tone.

But make no mistake. They will be back. One censor, in fact, User:AniMate, who is mad at hell at the phrase "African-American" being included in the article (and here I thought that was supposed to be the safe term!), has made it clear that he plans on returning to the article to butcher it.

Regards,

70.23.167.160 06:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

username
Your username change request requires your attention. —Random832 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)