User talk:Toshiba

Otherkin
the point of why it was reverted there was this/// the other wording wasnt considerably POV, and it was accepting of thier be;leifs, this current one is not. thats my objectionGavin the Chosen 08:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan
Thanks for your message. I did not "decide" he was vandalizing anything. His history of vandalism got him banned today (check the Talk page history), then he started vandalizing from a different portal. I'm well-aware of the three-revert rule.--Eleemosynary 22:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this clarification. Should I call it 15+RR or something else similar?  Or just "multiple violator of 3RR"?  Please let me know what term I should use.  Best,  Badagnani 22:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan
I will most certainly not stop calling it vandalism because that's exactly what it is. This isn't a dispute between multiple users, it's an anonymous user hiding behind an IP address making blatant POV edits and ignoring a consensus reached by many users. WP:3RR does not apply when reverting anon vandalism. I appreciate your concern, but you obviously have little understanding of the situation. Soltak 22:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Michael Dutton Douglas
(I see you have deleted the vandalism warning I put on your Usertalkpage 09:19, 21 August 2005 regarding vandalizing the Michael Dutton Douglas article. This time I'll give a warning concerning the Douglas section of the Laura Bush article. Would you please discuss your concerns on the article's talkpage instead.)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --saxet 00:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Michael Dutton Douglas
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Michael Dutton Douglas. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Michael Dutton Douglas (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)