User talk:Wcmcdade

I know it's annoying, but the New York Times thing really isn't helping get the DM block removed
I get angry at the way the debate around the DM is so illogical and filled with prejudice as well, but the New York Times thing isn't helping, and may get you banned. Best take a chill pill. Even if the vote goes against unblocking the DM we've put a pretty good peg in the ground for having another debate on this in six months which we have every chance of winning. Keep your powder dry for that. FOARP (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thatnk you for the feedback FOARP. This is NOT about the Daily Mail. This is only about the NYT. The DM is a whole separate issue for me.

May 2019
Hey Ahrtoodeetoo, Please go ahead and tell mommy you’re upset. PLEASE REPORT ME. It would be a badge of honor to have the “Democratic Party version of truth (Wikipedia - English Language)” boot me after 10 years because you and they are afraid of me opening an RfC on a talk page.

It is absolutely ridiculous that we can’t have a discussion on a talk page because some people disagree with my question (see the inaccurately title article “Spygate (conspiracy theory)”173.54.120.246 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've taken you up on your request and posted a note at User talk:Awilley. Let's see how he responds. R2 (bleep) 18:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
Please take some time to read WP:TOPICBAN to understand what this means. Violations of the topic ban will result in your account from being blocked from editing. Also, I recommend that you spend some time editing less-controversial areas. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a battleground, and we have less patience with editors who exclusively edit hot-button issues. ~Awilley (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. But no thanks. Requesting an RfC on a page called “SpyGate (conspiracy theory)” that appears to be edited by the children’s Democratic Party coalition and then getting “sanctioned” by some sanctimonious editor who doesn’t even explain what he finds to be so aweful is enough for me to finally realize that Wikipedia has completely lost its way. I’m deleting/deactivating my account. There’s no reason whatsoever for a person who’s not interest in echoing Democratic Party half truths and outright lies to continue to try to respectfully participate on a site where they believe the Daily Mail isn’t a reliable source, but the laughable N.Y. Times and Washington Post are. In 1989 the Post and Times were simply partisan. In 2019 they’ve become Democratic Party Propaganda machines. Good-byeWcmcdade (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)