User talk:TheDevilYouKnow

Concerning Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About
it appears that the reocmmendations differs depending on the edition of the book that is read (he updated the book both in 2005 and 2007). The list goes on way pass 36 in the original 2004 Hardcover. It's not important, but I'll just at it in the page as a minor edit. Eternal Sleeper 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware that the original version actually contains 111 recommendations (most of them common sense or moronic). However, without any mention or explanation as to the contents of those suggestions or that they were removed it does not make much sense to simply plop it in there.   TheDevilYouKnow 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your Opinion is not the Only Opinion
I have written a note in the Cuesports section inquiring about your deletions -- TWICE -- of my reference to the Kevin Trudeau article. The references were relevant to the article as they pertained to KEVIN TRUDEAU. If this is the kind of atmosphere on Wikipedia and people like yourself will continue to destroy other contributions because their opinions differ, I do not believe it is fair. I have asked for some advice as to how to deal with it.

If worse comes to worse, this will be my last time participating on Wikipedia. You seem to have a prejudice outlook on other contributions and opinions, as if their opinions and contributions, if differ from what you desire, should be deleted by you. It is not fair, and I am hoping the others, with more Wikipedia expertise and wisdom, will chime in. 00:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailbirdJAM (talk • contribs)


 * NB: He later removed this thread from the page in question, but I noticed it and became involved. I think you are both right and both wrong, in different ways. The key point is to stop revertwarring about it (both of you) and come to consensus on the talk page.  I've provided an idea there for doing that should resolve this dispute entirely. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Kevin Trudeau
Please stop the following forms of disruptive editing at this article:
 * 1) Over-controlling the content of this article. You are not allowed to "own" Wikipedia articles.
 * 2) Removing legitimate dispute and cleanup tags from the article. That the neutrality of this article is disputed is incredibly beyond question; the talk page consists of very little but dispute after dispute with regard to PoV and factuality.
 * 3) Labeling edits you disagree with as "vandalism"; doing so is incivil, it assumes bad faith, and it may be interpreted at the Administrator's Noticeboard as personal attacks, resulting in your being blocked from editing.
 * 4) Removing valid reference citations from the article. If you feel (as do I and several others) that some of them are of questionable relevance to the article, do not editwar over the matter, but seek consensus on the talk page (see in particular to this issue a proposed resolution recently posted with regard to IPT). Properly sourced material should generally be merged into more appropriate articles, not simply deleted.

I believe that you have good intentions in mind, but please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines better. Wikipedia is not Usenet or a webboard, where flaming and topic domination are common and acceptible practices. Rather, Wikipedia requires collaboration, which in turn requires mutual respect and cooperation. Thank you. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

okay
okay thank you for the clarification i sorry for what i said before on the talk page of tkevint rudeau. Smith Jones 02:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

User categories for discussion on -isms
Hi. A user category that you are in has been proposed for deletion at User categories for discussion. You are welcome to comment. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)