User talk:Eleemosynary/Archive and Dolphin (character): Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
User2004 (talk | contribs)
Personal comments: personal comments are best avoided
 
 
Line 1:
{{cleanup-date|August 2005}}
== Cindy Sheehan ==
'''Dolphin''' is a [[fictional character]], a [[DC Comics]] [[superheroine]].
 
{{Superherobox| <!--Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics-->
Nice edits on Cindy Sheehan article. [[User:Badagnani|Badagnani]] 08:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
image=[[Image:Dolphin_comics.jpg]]
|caption=Dolphin in her trademark outfit
|comic_color=background:#8080ff
|character_name=Dolphin
|real_name=Unknown
|publisher=[[DC Comics]]<BR>
|debut=Showcase #79
|creators=Jay Scott Pike
|alliance_color=background:#ffc0c0
|status=
|alliances=[[Tempest]]
|previous_alliances= Forgotten Heroes, [[Aquaman]]
|aliases=
|relatives=[[Tempest]], (husband) Cerdian (son)
|powers= artificially adapted for deep subaquatic life: underwater breathing, superhuman strength, resilience to deep water pressures
|}}
 
==[[Secret Origins]]==
== Cindy Sheehan Technical Issue ==
Dolphin (real name unknown) was a very young girl when she fell overboard from a cruise ship ([[Secret Origins]] #50) only to be saved from drowning when a mysterious [[alien]] race abducted her to use as an experimental prototype for a subaquatic humanoid race. In the course of these experiments, she acquired gills, webbed fingers, superhuman strength, resilence to deep water pressures, and a slowed aging process.
When the alien scientists suddenly abandoned the experiment, Dolphin escaped their underwater lab. Oblivious to her former humanity, the [[feral]] young Dolphin scavenged underwater for her livlihood, finding her trademark short blue-jeans and white shirt in a sunken ship. She grew into young womanhood living an isolated, lonely life, until the day the crew of an [[oceanology]] vessel saved her from a near lethal encounter with a [[dolphin]]-killing [[shark]].
 
The crew of the ship tried to educate and care for the girl they'd dubbed "Dolphin", but her utter lack of contact with either humans or Atlanteans had left her [[mute]]. Though she grew to understand spoken language fairly quickly, the act of speech itself remained beyond her. Then, a young female [[doctor]] on the crew had the bright idea to instruct her in [[American Sign Language|sign language]]. Finally able to communicate, Dolphin explained what she could of herself and her story, and expressed her desire to resume her undersea life. At some point, Dolphin finally mastered spoken language, (especially when she started having contact with the superheroic community) but never lost her shyness and reluctance to speak. She has since been a woman of few words.
Sorry for the comp problems on my end, I was just adding more anti-war mom comments, not vandalizing your work, which has been great. Just wanted to check in with that to avoid any confusion. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 23:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 
==The Cindy SheehanCrisis Years==
Dolphin has stayed mostly on the fringes of the superheroic community, although she was a member of the Forgotten Heroes until their dissolution, and fought alongside them during the ''[[Crisis on Infinite Earths]].''
 
==Meeting Aquaman==
Don't revert any more of 4.228.90.146 edits to the summary; he'll be blocked shortly for 3RR violation and, in several hours, your can restore the summary. (That way you'll avoid 3RR yourself) [[User:Soltak|Soltak]] 00:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
During the [[Zero Hour (comics)|Zero Hour]] events, she met [[Aquaman]], and took part in the battle against [[Charybdis (DC Comics)|Charybdis]], a villain interested in the aquatic powers of the two heroes. When Charybdis, after robbing Aquaman of his [[telepathic]] powers, stuck Aquaman's hand in a pool of water teeming with [[piranha|piranhas]], the normally passive Dolphin was forced to shoot the madman. She then escorted Aquaman and a wounded [[Aqualad]] back to Atlantis for medical attention.
 
Afterwards, she became a supporting character in the Aquaman comic book, and soon won the affections of an Aquaman embittered by the loss of his hand. Over time, she came out of her shell, and displayed a more energetic and bubbly, though naive, personality.
== Congrats ==
[[Image:Exceptional newcomer.jpg|thumb|left|The Exceptional Newcomer Award for your work on [[Cindy Sheehan]]]]
In issue #25 of Aquaman volume 3 it was revealed that [[Kordax]], an evil [[merman]] ancestor of Aquaman's, had secretly set Dolphin free from the lab, and used mind control to prompt her to infiltrate the royal court and kill Aquaman as the agent of his revenge on the royal house of Atlantis. The strong-willed Dolphin broke free of his control, and her romantic involvment with the king of Atlantis grew into love.
 
Dolphin remained Aquaman's lover until [[Mera]], Aquaman's wife, returned from her exile in another dimension called the Netherworld. In the same period, Aqualad, now calling himself [[Aqualad|Tempest]], returned from several years of extradimensional [[magic]] studies with increased powers and confidence, winning Dolphin's heart with a kiss. Though initially taken aback, Aquaman blessed the relationship. Eventually, Dolphin became pregnant by Tempest, and the two were married in an Atlantean ceremony attended by Tempest's second family, the [[Titans (comics)|Titans]].
You definately deserve it, that article is great, and you've put in alot of work into it. For more info on Barnstars, the awards given to Wikipedians who do great things, check out [[WP:STAR]].
 
==Starting a family life==
Also, your user page is your own, unless you want it there, [[user:Keetoowah|Keetoowah's]] comment can be removed immediately. His behavior has been atrocious, he currently has a request for comment out on him, i'll report his rude behavior to you there and to [[user:Zoe|Zoe]], an admin who's been checking on him. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 21:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Dolphin gave birth to a son, whom Aquaman named Cerdian (after Cerdia, a surface nation annexed by Atlantis). The weight of new familial responsibilities initially strained the relationship between Dolphin and Tempest. These tensions came to a head when Dolphin demanded Tempest choose between his duties as a hero and his duties as a father and husband. Tempest complied, and quit the Titans. When Aquaman was exiled for his role in the sinking of Atlantis, the family fell under suspicion as friends of the deposed king. The new sorcerous rulers deemed Dolphin and her family "collaborationists" and put them under house arrest. As of recent issues, this goverment has been overthrown, and Dolphin and her family live happily in a free Atlantis.
===No Problem===
No problem, just one more thing, usually it's customary to add 4 tildes like this,<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end of a comment, so people know who wrote it without having to go to the history. Somebody should have said this when you first started, but the [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee|Welcoming Committee]] isn't able to get everybody. [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]] 22:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 
[[Category:DC Comics superheroes]]
===Cindy Sheehan===
{{DC-Comics-stub}}
 
Eleemosynary,
Thanks for catching that. The jamboree reference could also have been labeled as POV since it's tangential to the Sheehan story. It's nice that Wikipedia is continually reviewed by others as its being created. Thanks again for helping. [[User:Kgrr|Kgrr]] 16:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 
== help ==
 
see the new arrival at Hurricane Katrina...
 
== Vandal on the Air America Radio page ==
 
Hi there... I noticed that you were involved in many of the edits and discussions on the Air America Radio page and wondered if you might be able to help me deal with a vandal who is pushing a political POV agenda on that page. The vandal's name is Keetowah. I noticed from the AAR discussion page that previous contributors including yourself had significant trouble with this vandal. Any advice or assistance you may be able to provide would be much appreciated. --[[User:Pmagnay|Pmagnay]] 15:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 
:Yes, Keetowah is certainly a vandal. He's been blocked several times, and is under arbitration now. [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 03:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 
::I haven't been blocked several times. That is just a bald-faced lie. -- --[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 12:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Regarding [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777]] ==
 
Since you have begun interacting with Bigdaddy again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karl_Rove&diff=prev&oldid=24061357], and endorsed the original RfC [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777#Other_users_who_endorse_this_summary], I thought you might be interested to know that since the dispute resolution process has stalled due to BigDaddy's refusal to respond to this RfC, some are now questioning whether an RfAr should be filed.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/BigDaddy777#Motion_to_suspend_rescinded] Your comments on this new issue would be appreciated. [[User:69.121.133.154|69.121.133.154]] 20:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 
== Rove talk post ==
 
Spot on. As long as he doesn't answer, I only see white space. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 01:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 
:I understand that you are frustrated with BD, so am I. But, it might be prudent to disengage from unnecessary talk with him right now. First, he is probably understandably upset at the moment, given the RFAr against him. Second, it might cloud the issues from the arbitrators' point of view. They haven't been following everything all along, and it's hard to get a good perspective on it in a short time. So, you don't want to distract their focus from the evidence onto any back and forth about the RFAr itself. Just my two cents. Regards, [[User:Derex|Derex]] 05:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 
"Little Baby's" paranoiac whining... deleted!
 
::Yeah, you're right Derex. He's completely upset. He's even trolling my Talk Page for mention of him. A lonely, angry troll, that Little Baby! [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 02:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 
:I'd like to second what Derex said. No need to muddy the issues. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 02:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
::I agree as well. Best to try to take the high road. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup> 03:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 
Nonsensical blather from humiliated vandal, aka [[User:BigDaddy777|Big Daddy]], (whose sockpuppetry has been discovered)... deleted! [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 13:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 
:boy it's tough not to engage that guy. i found myself doing it all morning, breaking my own advice. something about his attitude just gets me in a fighting mood. [[User:Derex|Derex]] 05:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 
==your NOW SUPPORTED accusations==
your accusations of sockpuppetry and constant reverts of every one of my edits show a complete lack of respect for the validity of my contributions as well as my attempts to reach consensus, often at odds with BigDaddy I might add. please provide either support for your claims or an apology. Consider this your final warning before I seek escalation of this matter. [[User:67.124.200.240|67.124.200.240]] 12:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 
Seek all the escalation you want, BD. I've provided supporting evidence (more of which is to come) on the Ann Coulter Talk Page. I will present my evidence of your sockpuppet use in arbitration and let the arbitrators decide. Cheers. [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 13:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 
You got some nerve accusing me of that garbage. You want to know my IP address? JUST ASK NEXT TIME.[[User:Gator1|Gator1]] 14:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 
:Always a good method of researching possible sockpuppetry... just ask! [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 16:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 
Now that you know I'm not a sockpuppet, I hope you can apologize. If I falsely accused someone I would certainly eat some crow and do that for them. That was a serious and ugly accusation that hurts a person;s reputation. When made incorrectly, you owe that person an apology.[[User:Gator1|Gator1]] 15:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 
:I only inquired it of a third party researcher, and never "accused" you of something. Thus, no apologies are necessary. Cheers. (By the way, I do not yet "know" you are not a sockpuppet, but I'd be grateful if you could point me toward that info. Thanks.) [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 16:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 
Apology accepted.[[User:Gator1|Gator1]] 16:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 
:LOL! I didn't apologize. But of course, you know that. Speaking of sockpuppets, there have been some very juicy revelations of late, wouldn't you say? But what I don't understand is... why did you blank them from your Talk page. Oh, well... thank goodness for the history pages! [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 16:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 
::worrying about sockpuppetry is really kind of pointless, unless it's an issue of counting votes. what does it matter ''who'' said what; it's what's said that matters. but anyway, i highly doubt that gator is a sockpuppet. you can usually tell by the little things like punctuation and favorite words and turns of phrase and such as that. [[User:Derex|Derex]] 16:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 
:::Usually, but not always. And it's completely possible that's he's not, but there's no harm in checking. By the way, there was an administrative IP check on BD777 recently that seems to have unearthed a whole bunch of sockpuppets he was using... including ones containing hilarious back and forth protestations that he was not a sockpuppet. There was a good, in-depth conversation about it on Gator's Talk page. But for some reason... Gator blanked it! Hmmmm. [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 16:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 
::::Read his edit summary - there was nothing sinister in blanking the conversation. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 16:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 
:::::I've read it, and while it may not be sinister, it is in fact curious. I'm really not going to expend more time on Gator today. Read his puerile responses to my non-apologies, and you'll be able to figure out why. He's demonstrating the Wiki equivalent of sticking fingers in both ears and going NYANYANYANYANYAIAMNOTLISTENING!!!! [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 17:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 
Feel free to unblank it if you think there is a cover up. I for one have no idea what you're talking about so couldn't find it if I wanted to. oh and is this an accsation or just another "inquiry?" I'll accept your forthcoming apology now. (give it up)[[User:Gator1|Gator1]] 16:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 
:Nope, still no apology. You have no idea what I'm talking about? Okay, I'll spell it out. Guetterda and you had a conversation on your Talk Page (under the caring, gentle heading "Since BD can no longer speak for himself"), in which Guetterda presented you with evidence of the administrator investigation and IP check of BD777's many sockpuppets. Not long after that happened, you blanked the message. Not much longer after that, you blanked the entire conversation.
 
By the way, [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/BigDaddy777/Workshop#Sockpuppets|here]] are the results of the IP check.
 
:There are no results of the IP check there. The only thing I have found on the subject is a statement by Fred Bauder that the results of the IP check were ambiguous: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jdavidb&diff=prev&oldid=24814712]. Do you have a real link to the real results of the IP check? Do you have a link to the diffs where results were posted on Gator's page? [[User:Jdavidb|Jdavidb]] 16:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 
:In case anyone like me is researching, here's the diff on Gator's page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gator1&diff=24734884&oldid=24734702]. Nothing there but the same (broken) link to the same non-results. [[User:Jdavidb|Jdavidb]] [[User_talk:Jdavidb|(talk)]] 16:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 
::I just read your spirited defense of BD777, and your argument that he wasn't using sockpuppets until recently. I disagree, based on some pretty damning correlations between BD777's postings, and both anonymous ID's in question on the Coulter page. When I have a bit more time, I'll post my own argument under yours. Though more research is being done on the sockpuppetry, there is no question that some sockpuppetry has been unearthed. I trust the administrators' judgments who have temporarily blocked BD777 based on their judgment calls and the evidence at hand. You yourself have suggested BD777 may have recently begun using sockpuppets (as, I might add, he has promised to do). As for "real results" of the IP check, my link is not broken and works fine. Now, I don't really want to get into an argument about it. I'd rather await the arbitration results and enjoy the reason I started using Wiki in the first place... to edit an encyclopedia. [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 16:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 
:The anchor of the link is broken. There is no place for #Sockpuppets to go to. You mean #Sockpuppets_of_BigDaddy777.
:I'm not defending BD777 in general, but I am disputing the charges of sockpuppetry.
:Whatever sockpuppetry has been unearthed appears to have involved some or all of the users you listed, but as of yet I've seen no statement from David Gerard that it involved BigDaddy. You keep linking to nothing but a list of names as proof.
:I have no problem with BD being blocked. I could reverse it myself if I cared to, and I sure don't.
:If BD has started using sockpuppets, it's because he was more or less goaded into doing so. [[User:Jdavidb|Jdavidb]] [[User_talk:Jdavidb|(talk)]] 17:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 
::Well, I disagree with your last statement. BD777 has been a highly abusive and destructive editor, so claiming his use of sockpuppets was from being "goaded" is a bit of stretch, at least to me. I would suggest he's been using the anonymous sockpuppets for some time to build consensus on the Coulter page. I also take issue with your contention that the anonymous IPS on the Coulter page cannot be him because they have a different tone than BD777's rants. On the contrary. One of the more sophisticated(?) uses of sockpuppetry is having a few that sound nothing like the primary user, so as to better give the impression that the primary user is (falsely) building consensus. You've taken the position that the IP check is not "proof." It may not be incontrovertible, ironclad proof at this point, but it's very likely the beginning of something. Again, we disagree. I look forward to the arbitration decision, though. For the love of sanity, if nothing else. [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 17:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 
:You've misunderstood. I have not taken the position that the IP check is not proof. I have taken the position that noone has ever posted any IP check results. The posting there is just a list of names. There is no statement from anyone that BD was any of those people. There are no posted results of an IP check anywhere that I can see, or else the posting on the Workshop page needs to be clarified to actually say what it means. As near as I can tell, that list of names was placed there by Fred Bauder. He has neither confirmed nor denied that that posting is "results of an IP check" or "record of an IP check in progress." But he HAS stated that the results of the IP check were ambiguous. Unless you have something I do not, there are no public results of an IP check. I'm waiting for a statement from Fred Bauder to clarify if the stuff over at Workshop is supposed to be the results of an IP check or not.
:As for goading, my statement was not that any sockpuppeting done by BD in the past was prompted by goading. My statement only concerns some stuff that happened this morning on his talk page. [[User:Jdavidb|Jdavidb]] [[User_talk:Jdavidb|(talk)]] 19:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 
::I haven't misunderstood you, nor do I understand your contentious tone. Considering the fact that BD777 severely attacked you on his Talk Page, I can see why you might be upset right now. But I have no desire to get into a talk page war. And as far as "goading" goes, BD777 (as you may now understand) needs no "goading" to revert to abuse, childishness, or sockpuppets. "Remarkable restraint," indeed. [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 19:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 
Understand it now? Yeah, I thought so. And I accept your apology. [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 16:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 
If you feel I have wronged you in any way, then I apologize and regret not doing so earlier. Thank you for calling me on that. You're a class act.[[User:Gator1|Gator1]] 17:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 
--------------
Actually, Eleemosynary, I do think there's a harm in checking. I think a sockpuppet check is a good idea when a ''vote'' or the appearance of a ''consensus'' is seriously disputed, with strong probable cause of sockpuppetry. Otherwise, it's just a distraction. It promotes a culture of calling "sockpuppet" instead of responding to arguments. It's sort of like arguing that the US 4th amendment against searches is pointless, because if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Maybe that's just the libertarian in me. But, I also think there's probably a thoughtful reason why sockpuppet checks are made difficult here. [[User:Derex|Derex]] 20:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 
:Well, I would agree with you in most cases. And this whole sordid BD777 affair (which has finally degenerated, like many third-rate tragedies, into farce[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BigDaddy777]) has left a lot of mud on the walls. But again, it was only an inquiry, supported not by vindictiveness or a hunch, but stemming from BD777's (now apparently untrue) protestations that he never used sockpuppets, and Gator's immediate leap to decry the admins who ran the IP checks. It's all a bit "the lady doth protest too much methinks."
 
:I also agree that, in the overwhelming majority of disputes, "sockpuppet" accusations are and can be damaging to the group spirit. But this BD777 case is a special case indeed, soon to draw (one hopes) to a just and fair conclusion. [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 02:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 
==Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777==
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777]] has been accepted. Please place evidence at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence]] [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 15:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 
==64.154.26.251==
The following is the response I have sent to the person behind {{User|Viper Daimao}}. The ip is an open proxy at Haliburton Corporation. I think most folks using it are just Haliburton employees doing ordinary editing, not connected to our edit warriors.
 
I have thought overnight about the proxy 64.154.26.251. There are two problems, one of the edit warriors from [[Ann Coulter]] was using it extensively as an alternative to a block of their account (At this point I don't know which, but you could look at the user contributions for {{User|64.154.26.251}} and figure it out. That takes a bit of time and actually doesn't matter (exactly who was using the proxy as a sockpuppet). The other problem is that you, and other Wikipedia users, those named on the /Workpage, were also using the proxy. Bottom line, once a vandal discovers an open proxy we can't leave it unblocked. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. It does not seem reasonable to request Halliburton to identify them and block them.
 
Use of the open proxy seems to be part of the arbitration case involving BigDaddy777, it actually is not as that case centers on personal behavior of a person you and the other users of the open proxy have no connection to.
 
Fred [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 12:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 
==Move for a temporary injunction against BigDaddy777==
[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/BigDaddy777/Workshop#Move_for_a_Temporary_Injunction|A move for a temporary injunction]] has been filed to prevent BD from altering or removing comments on his talk page. Please support. --[[User:Woohookitty|Woohookitty]] 07:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 
== Personal comments ==
 
*''revd the commentary of the leftwing nutjob.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathryn_Jean_Lopez&diff=next&oldid=27120299]
Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors. Wikipedia has a policy against [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks]]. <!-- Some users may [[Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks|remove]] personal attacks, and --> In serious cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banned]] from editing. Comment on content, not on the contributor. For further help, see [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]. Thank you. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 00:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
Well, I guess your Arbitration Decision failed to convince you. You will be now reported for personal attacks. [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 03:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:I made that comment on purpose. I made the comment to point out the one-sidedness of the policy. In the same article just two edits before you, Eleemosynary, called an editor a "rightwing nutjob." So what we have here is an example of the system where the people that constantly engages in personal attacks, Eleemosynary, and he/she is the first person to file Arbitration complaints against others. Thank you, Eleemosynary, for making my point for me. --- --[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 12:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
:Dear Willmcw: How come you did not warn Eleemosynary when he made this comment that I found on the Talk page for Kathy Lopez --- :I re-added the C-Span photo. Why exactly, don't the wingnuts want anyone to see what Lopez looks like? Are they ashamed? :)--[[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 06:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
::Have a good day Willmcw and Eleemosynary, your silly one-sidedness has been exposed. --- --[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 12:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:::Keetoowah is correct that disparaging comments about other editors is not helpful. This, for instance:
:::*''Why don't the wingnuts want anyone to see it?''
:::is not conducive to building a collegial editing atmostphere. Please focus on the dits, rather than the editors. Thanks, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 19:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
==Worst supporting actress razzie==
I was curious if you have a reason for removing Condoleezza Rice from [[:Category:Worst Supporting Actress Razzie nominees]] as she was indeed nominated for this category last year. --[[User:Fallout boy|Fallout boy]] 07:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
:The Category of Razzies seems to be overkill. It is not just Condi Rice. It is all of them. Even the people that I don't particularly like. There is no real value in constantly talking about the Razzies as if they are important, etc. They aren't important. They are superficial and shallow. The category should be removed entirely for all receipients. I mean, it make sense to mention the Razzie in the article (for whomever), but creating a whole new category that is redundant and it places the Razzie in a context that it does not deserve. --- --[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 00:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::Nope. Keetowah is rather famous 'round these parts as a shameless POV disseminator, personal attacker, and vandal. He's even been disciplined by the arbitration committee. The "Razzie" category is completely fine for the Rice article, and will remain. [[User:Eleemosynary|Eleemosynary]] 03:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
:::Dear Eleemosynary, why do you feel the need to libel me throughout Wikipedia. If you don't stop, I have several examples and this is just one, then I will file an Arbitration claim against you--even though I find the Arbitration process to be silly and it tends to limit free speech. Concerning the Razzie awards, I just expressed an opinion and you more.however your constant and repeated personal attacks on me must stop. --- --[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 13:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)