User talk:YoungWebster

- СПУТНИК ССС  Р 17:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Bias and the 3RR rule
Point #1: Wikipedia has rules regarding neutral point of view and verifiability. The article on Susan Kadis cannot and will not assert that the demise of the Thornhill Times came because the paper was too partisan — it's a claim that can never be lifted out of the "it's true because I said so" file. The claim is unverifiable and not neutral.

Point #2: Wikipedia has a three-revert rule; you cannot revert disputed text more than three times in a 24-hour period. You already broke this rule once; consider this your first warning. You may be editblocked if it happens again.

Point #3: Do you VaughanWatch guys really think I'm too dumb to see through this? Bearcat 03:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And, after further review, it's time for point #4: given that User:70.31.246.119 was previously involved in talk page blanking at Susan Kadis, behaviour consistent with the VaughanWatch side of the dispute, how exactly do you expect me to believe that they're suddenly User:pm_shef's sock puppet? I'll tell you what it looks like from where I'm sitting: you and 70 trying to frame shef for a 3RR violation.


 * The ball's in your court, kiddo. Prove me wrong or it's editblock time. Bearcat 03:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

False Accusations
They're not just saying that you're a sockpuppet of vaughanwatch, but others too. Go to the deletion review. 02:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Who should be banned?
Please read my user page. --JohnnyCanuck 22:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)