User talk:Keltik31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia Hello, Keltik31, and welcome to Wikipedia! Wikipedia is one of the world's fastest growing internet sites. We aim to build the biggest and most comprehensive encyclopaedia in the world. To date we have over four million articles in a host of languages. The English language Wikipedia alone has over one million articles! But we still need more! Please feel free to contribute your knowledge and expertise to our site. If you need help see: Help contents - the main help page. Quick guide - a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands. Here are a few more good links for newcomers: The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Contents 1 Complaints 2 Signing messages in talk pages 3 Racism/anti-Semitism 4 Personal attacks to Weirdoactor 5 Personal attack 6 Jerry Springer 7 1.4 million bullets 8 Misuse of article talk page 9 Personal attacks and admin impersonation 10 Your edit to Rodney King 11 Your edit to Racism 12 A gentle suggestion to Keltik31 and Db099221 13 Your recent edit to the Illegal immigration article 14 RfC 15 Your recent edit to Easter Rising 16 Grand National 17 Warning: WP:3RR 18 your edits on 08 FEB 07 19 nonsense? 20 Cornel West 21 Ralph Nader

[edit] Complaints

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Hamas. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Avi 14:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Menachem Begin, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Avi 14:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signing messages in talk pages

When you insert a comment in a talk page, please type ~~~~ (four tildes) after it. Wikipedia's editor will convert that into your username and the date. Thankyou. Anthony Appleyard 15:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racism/anti-Semitism

Racism and anti-Semitism have no place on Wikipedia. I have you on my watchlist, and I will revert any article edits you make that have racist/Racism/anti-Semitic tones, as most of your edits do. Continue this behavior, and I will bring it to the attention of the administrators. Weirdoactor 19:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

what have i said that is racist or anti-semetic? (personal attack removed) i have never said that all people of a certain group are one way or another. you are an idiot! i have posted my opinions in the discussion pages. i cant help it if you cant hold up your side of an argument. i am not anti semetic because i know really nothing about the religion. i am anti B.S. i dont edit the damn articles because heavan forbid i state something true, like that Begin was a terrorist. you're going to notify the administrators? oh, i just crapped my pants with fear. i am on your watch list? (personal attack removed)

you think i a antisemetic because i question the "official story"? i dont need any lectures from the likes of you. stay in chicago. Keltik31 20:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)keltik31Keltik31 20:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks to Weirdoactor

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Db099221 21:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Db099221 21:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks? get real. Keltik31 22:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes; such as your blanking my comments here. Get a new hobby. -- Weirdoactor 23:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits include personal attacks, incivil comments, POV-pushing, and alleged blanking of comments. If you continue to violate these policies, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 23:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Addhoc 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Shell ^babelfish 20:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

when does it expire? Keltik31 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

24 hours - have a look at Keltik31 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email). Addhoc 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Springer

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. --Db099221 04:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.4 million bullets

Hi. I remember that you wrote somewhere, i don't remember where, that you didn't believe that 1.4 million Jews where shot by the Einsatzgruppen since it meant 1.4 bullets would be wasted in times of war. Well, first the gigantic German armement industry was turning at full speed since the mid 1930s, and you shouldn't forget that Germany had the most powerful steel and iron industry in western Europe too. So 1.4 million bullets out of - litteraly - billions is no argument. Then, you probably forget that eliminating the Jews was central to nazi ideology. You can (re)read it in Mein Kampf, or in Joseph Goebbels diaries, or Rudolf Höss's memoirs for instance. Since it was one of their main and prior aims to kill all the Jews, who'd wonder they'd spend some of their bullets for that purpose ? RCS 10:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

and this was worth botherin me over?Keltik31 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My view is that it has been greatly exaggerated. I don't believe that 6 million died. I once did, but no more. I don't believe that it makes me an evil person or anti-Semitic or bad in any way. I think that those who continue to perpetuate the lies of things like mass gassings and human fat used for soap strictly monetary gain are the ones who are evil. There have been many atrocities throughout the history of the world. But for some reason, non command the attention and sympathy that the so-called holocaust does. I read that in what was supposedly used as gas chambers, there is little trace of the gas. I have read that not one autopsy proves that one person died from being gassed. And if it was the policy of the Nazis to exterminate children, where are the goddamn photos of dead children in piles? Why did that poor young lady, Anne Frank, die of typhus and not from being gassed? Because 90% of what is supposed to be true is outright bullshit used by opportunists in the Zionist movement to favor sympathy for Israel and to extort money from Germany. Why is there no Irish famine museum in America? Keltik31 18:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know that there are currently a number of Irish heritage museums and organizations in the US, and all have copious information about the Famine? It's true! In addition; there are 34 million Americans of Irish ancestry in the US, while there are only an estimated 5.2 million Americans of Jewish ancestry. There SHOULD be more museums for the Irish! I personally blame the wealthy Irish Americans who squander their large personal fortunes campaigning for political office and opening Irish-themed restaurants, rather than building museums to commemorate the unfortunate death or between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Irish citizens. I mean, if there are 34M Irish-Americans, and only 5.2M Jewish-Americans, there MUST be more rich Irish-Americans by ratio, correct? But NO! These "rich Jews" (I’m one of the RARE poor Jews, so I HATES those rich ones!) keep building these Holocaust museums ALL OVER the US! Twenty-three of them! And with there being only about seventy-five organizations with information about the Famine (thirty-five Irish history museums and about forty Irish Heritage centers) in the US, I can see why you would feel that this is not equitable. Right? I mean 75 for a million dead vs. 23 for between 9 and 26 million dead (maybe, right? WINK!), THAT’S JUST NOT FAIR! And what about the 20 million killed by Stalin? Where’s THEIR museum? And the millions killed by the Japanese? I DEMAND ANSWERS!!! -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 19:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

well, i must say that i was impressed. i love it when someone comes at me with statisitcs. who the hell knows why irish americans (and i am one of them) dont spend more money on heritage museums. who knows why there is so much jewish money in america and in american politics. all i know is that i dont buy the official story. i think that when one innocent person, be it a palestinian living under a brutal zionist occupation, or a jewish person eating at a cafe on a saturday afternoon is killed for no good reason (usually religion) that it is the act that must be condemned and no attention should be placed on the race, religion or ethnicity of the perp and the victim. i know there were jews that suffered and died in ww 2. i know that there are jews with hearts of gold. but i also know bullshit when i see it. i also know when people are exploiting something, and nothing has been exploited more than the holocaust. there is just as much hate on the jewish side as there is on the non jewish side. jews are not incapable of being hateful and brutal. over 9k palestinians dead since the last intafada. where is the memorial to them. who cries for the Pals? I do. Keltik31 19:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, nobody talks about 6 millions anymore. Raul Hilberg has made it clear it were 5.1 million. Still 5.1 million too much, i say. RCS 22:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

i dont think the numbers are important. one is too many. Keltik31 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misuse of article talk page

Hello, Keltik31. I've noticed your comments on Talk:Catholicism for the last few days. May I remind you that article talk pages are meant for discussion of ways to improve the article. Every edit is saved in the history of the page, and the server space costs the Foundation money. We don't enforce the guideline rigidly, and if someone occasionally wants to make a friendly joke or to make a comment that isn't directly relevant to the article, there are generally no complaints. However, your behaviour at that page has crossed the line between slight misuse of talk page and clear trolling, so I'm asking you to stop. If you have genuine questions about why Catholics believe what they do, I suggest you browse this website, rather than treating Wikipedia as a discussion forum. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 22:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks and admin impersonation

Keltik31, you are repeatedly acting in an uncivil manner. As you have been told on numerous occasions, personal attacks have no place on Wikipedia. In addition, the impersonation of admins (as you do here) is strictly prohibited. One last thing; talk pages are not discussion forums for any topic other than the improvement of the article for which the talk page exists. They are not chat rooms or bulletin boards for random comments, trolling, or personal attacks. If you are unable to to follow the policies of Wikipedia, the admins will have no choice but to permanently ban you. -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 03:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. --Db099221 23:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not use offensive language, such as "nigger," on Wikipedia. Thank you. --Db099221 23:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

i did not use that word. i removed it from the article. Keltik31 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for that. I misunderstood your edit summary. --Db099221 21:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He removed it from the article, and copied onto the article's talk page. That is an interesting way to handle vandalism; most editors simply delete them and move on. Eron 22:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Rodney King

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Db099221 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

what in the world are you talking about? vandalizing a page? what are you referring to? there was a gauntlet. look up the articles about it. i didnt vandalize anything. Keltik31 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If there was, then you must add a citation. Until then, do not add that information to the article. --Db099221 23:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism". these are your exact words. do you think i just made the gauntlet stuff up? half the article has no citation to it. i dont think you are being fair. i think you are just being over sensitive. sorry of i offended. i will try to find a citation for it and maybe you can help me get it on the article correctly? Keltik31 23:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Your history of controversial edits makes me doubt the validity of your claim. I am not being unfair or oversensitive. If you find a legitimate source, then the information can remain. --Db099221 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

well i dont care what you really think. controversial maybe. incorrect, no. if you knew anything about the rodney king incident and the riots that ensued you'd know that blacks and hispanics DID target white people and DID run a gauntlet. i forget exactly at what corner it was run Keltik31 23:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not launch personal attacks, to me or any other user. --Db099221 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks? good lord. talk about sensitive. Keltik31 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider dismissal of my opinion and the implication that I do not know anything to be a personal attack. Please be civil to other users. --Db099221 23:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Racism

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. --Db099221 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

the naacp is as racist as the other groups listed because it only sticks up for blacks. same with the congressional black caucus. Keltik31 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, discuss it on the talk page or you will be banned from editing Wikipedia. --Db099221 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A gentle suggestion to Keltik31 and Db099221

Could I suggest an end to this conversation? If Keltik31 is being disruptive, he'll be blocked. If he has been disruptive and decides to change, he won't be blocked. However, he has been warned, and sticking another template or another warning on his talk page every two minutes is not going to achieve anything. Db099221, please move away, and let others deal with this if there is anything to deal with. And Keltik31, please try to be less controversial in the future. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 23:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry, it says "be bold". the truth sometimes is controversial. Keltik31 23:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. JoshuaZ 02:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edit to the Illegal immigration article

Unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Illegal immigration, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 16:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

the wall is being built for more than one reason. sorry if you thought it was vandalism. Keltik31 17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits like this and this can be seen as POV pushing, so it's not pure vandalism; but they certainly weren't constructive edits. Please keep in mind, the article in question is about illegal immigration, not the illegal drug trade or smuggling. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

if i write an article about the percentage of illegals wanted on murder warrants and the amount of crime they commit, will you assist me in placing the citations in the article? Keltik31 18:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine how such information would be worthy of mention; it seems more inflammatory in nature than informational or encyclopedic.

I'm sure we could go back and forth with such topics, such as the percentage of illegal immigrants who:

- are fleeing political or religious persecution who have been denied asylum by USCIS

- have made a positive contribution to the United States (the number of which is exponentially higher than your example)

- have served in the US military, and possibly even been wounded or died while doing so.

You seem to want to focus on the negative aspects of the immigration debate, and that is certainly your prerogative. I won't help you do so. May I suggest that you start a blog? You would be able to pretty much write whatever you want (within common sense/legal limits), unfettered by the constraints of Wikipedia's policies on NPOV/POV pushing, editing and civility. You'd be the editor! You'd be in charge! Think how much fun that would be! Food for thought... -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 19:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

not worthy of mention? so, are only things that are warm and fuzzy worthy of mention? is politicatl correctness more important. according to the center for Immigration studdies, 95% of all the murder warrants in los angeles county are for illegal aliens. i think that is noteworthy. i havent read the entire slavery article on wik, but i do know that with rare exception, the slaves that were brought to the ameirca's were sold, not kidnapped but sold into slavery by their own people. no, it's not a flattering thing to say when you want to blame the whole thing on the white man. it kind of takes the wind out of the sails of the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. but would it not be noteworthy?

i'm sorry, but i get the impression that wikipedia does try to be objective and fair, but at the same time there is a lot of gutless liberalism at play too. heaven forbid that the truth is spoken here. Keltik31 21:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Warm and fuzzy? No. The "statistics" (dubious as they are; I can find no such information in any LA County or California database, law enforcement or otherwise) you speak of are more newsworthy than encyclopedic; but in my opinion they are neither. And yes; some Africans were sold into slavery by other Africans to Europeans (some, not all, and not many, as those selling others soon were likely made slaves themselves when they ran out of "product"), as noted here. If that information is not in the Slavery article, it may be because slavery exists worldwide, and not just in the United States; and existed many years before Europeans occupied this land.

As for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson; I personally believe them both to be loud, pompous and obnoxious self-promoters who probably do more harm than good…but there are worse villains…trust me; you just have to know where to look.

Also, did you not state above “i love it when someone comes at me with statisitcs.” (sic)? And now you do the same? Interesting.

As for political correctness being more important than noteworthy content…have you seen some of the articles on here? Like this? Or this? Where would propaganda such as the “statistics” you cite fit on Wikipedia? Maybe here? Or perhaps here? Maybe here?

Some things you should consider: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a publisher of original thought. I'll repeat my suggestion that you start a blog.

I'm guessing you mean the Center for Immigration Studies; a 501C3 organization reportedly controlled and funded by John Tanton, an individual with known connections to racist hate groups…and you talk about being "objective and fair"? That group would fall FAR from what would be considered “reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. Talk about pushing POV…a group like that is pushing it with a bulldozer.

In closing, I’ll state that “truth” can be relative and changeable, especially if taken at face value, or on faith. As JoshuaZ states above, “Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth.” -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

i do like it when people come at me with stats. i wasnt being a smartass. that "dirty sanchez" thing you could have left out. i didnt know Diamond was such a weirdo. i obviously cant hold my own against you as you seem to know quite a bit about all sorts of things. how many hours do you spend a week at this? Keltik31 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

More hours than I'd like to admit. And less than I would if not for other commitments. -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

A Request for Comment on your conduct has been opened. You are entitled to provide your point of view. You may do this at the "Response" section at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Keltik31. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 20:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your RfC is proceeding in a way that is not favorable to you. However, I think the best thing is for everyone, including you, to come to a mutual agreement. What do you think should happen next? --Ginkgo100 ^talk 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

i couldnt care less. ban me if you want. i will continue to read articles in wik. no problem if i cant edit. i dont really care at this point. free thought is discouraged here anyway. Keltik31 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edit to Easter Rising

C'mon, Keltik. I was really hoping that you could turn this behavior around. As you well know by now, you can't make a major POV change to an article like that without some discussion, and a change like yours would definitely require a citation. Would you like me to help you learn this process? I'm willing to teach if you're willing to learn, and most importantly, if (and only if) you are willing to follow Wikipedia policy. How about it? -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 21:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

sure. i'm willing to learn. Keltik31 13:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC) and btw, have you ever heard of a charity called The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews? www.ifcj.org

• Cool. Note that I added the {{fact}} tag to your last Easter Rising edit; so that others know that the edit requires citation; this makes it less likely that you could be accused of "POV pushing", and that you simply want to show a different POV that may be controversial, but nonetheless deserves to be shown. That's something for you to think about doing in future situations like this.
• I have heard of the IFCJ. Odd; they don't seem to have a Wiki page. I have this thing I do, whenever I'm researching something on Wikipedia, and there isn't a page, I try to find out if there ever was one that was possibly deleted, or if there is an actually notability need for such a page; and if so, I add it to my list of pages I want to create. Were you curious about the IFCJ? -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 15:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

no, i wasnt curious about the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. i have been accused of being anti-semetic, and i failed to mention that i gave over $100.00 to that organization about three years ago. they take hot meals to impovershed jews living in the former soviet republics. the infomercial i saw on the organization tore my heart out and i felt compelled to do something so i gave money. i dont think that someone who hates jews would give his own money to feed them. Keltik31 16:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you supported that effort, as it seems like a good one. -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 16:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand National

Grand National: Please provide sources of facts you are adding. Otherwise they may be deleted. `'mikka 22:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

i will contact the local newspaper there in aintree and get it for you. i had the photo clipping that stated that he was the first. also, is there any chance you might help me start a wik page about him? Keltik31 23:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning: WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ted Kennedy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Additional disruptive behavior will result in being blocked. /Blaxthos 04:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

what i have put in the article is true and documented. too bad the truth doesnt matter. Keltik31 13:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your edits on 08 FEB 07

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. L0b0t 16:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

i resent your labling it as nonsense. Keltik31 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nonsense?

who are you to tell me that my truthful info about rfk jr is nonsense? Keltik31 20:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well if you are refering to this edit [1], then it was not "truthful info about RFK" it is your paraphrasing something about President G.W. Bush from some of RFK's writting that you just dropped into the middle of an unrelated paragraph. Cheers. L0b0t 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

ok well he did write a book that makes those claims. so how do i write it so that people like you dont edit it? Keltik31 22:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it is not about RFK, but rather something he wrote about other people it would be much better suited in an article about the subject of RFK's book or article. The fact that he wrote that particular piece is already well covered in his article and there is no need for a pull-quote. Please understand, I am in no way disputing the information itself. My cry of foul comes from the way in which it was inserted into an unrelated sentence in a nongermane article. This might be a good place to start Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration#Environment. Cheers. L0b0t 22:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

understood. thank you. Keltik31 23:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cornel West

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Cornel West. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.

I would also like to remind you that article talk pages, such as Talk:Cornel West are meant for discussion of ways to improve the article, and are not intended to be a forum for editors' personal views of the subject of the article. Thanks. Malik Shabazz 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Nader

Given your long, long lengthy history on this page of bad edits that only interject your POV, I suggest you stop. If you insist on putting in the irrelevant "multi millionaire" (sic) tag again, I will recommend you be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you feel this is relevant to the article, bring it up on the talk page. Thanks for your cooperation. --DavidShankBone 22:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

who are you to say it is irrelevant? are you the wiki-god? he claims to be anti corporate and is worth millions in stock. you do what you want. i will put it back in. and dont levture me, ok? Keltik31 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem to spend all your time putting on material that is contentious, unencyclopedic and disruptive, I am going to request you be banned from editing. You can find it on the admin board. --DavidShankBone 03:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

i do feel it is relevant when a man is anti-corporate and then owns millions in corporate stock. sorry if the facts make you uncomfortable. Keltik31 17:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)