User talk:LGagnon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Note: From now on, I'm just reverting/blanking any messages here without reading them. Until the admins can guarantee me they are going to stop harassment here (instead using a "blame the victim" excuse for doing nothing), nothing should be written on this page at all.

Contents

[edit] Sigh

I've blocked AOluwatoyin a couple of times. I don't quite understand what else you want here. I told you that if you wanted help, just ask me directly on my talk page. I would recommend toning down your message here. You aren't helping your cause any with it. It comes off as hostile. And reverting others comments like you say you are going to is probably going to get you blocked. Again, it doesn't help you any. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an email. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bias

LGagnon, I appreciate your concern with keeping wikipedia npov. However, your editing of the Ayn Rand article seems to indicate a strong negative bias. Some of your edits and concerns I agree with, despite my being an Objectivist, and therefore likely to have a favorable view of Ayn Rand. I think good criticism and controversy inforamtion shold be included. I think many of your edits though are very npov. I suggest you take a step back and think about this before proceeding.Ethan a dawe 21:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Ethan Dawe

[edit] Philosopher

What are your thoughts on "Lay Philosopher" versus "Non-Academic Philosopher?" Someone is suggesting this in regards Rand and others? Ethan a dawe 21:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Ethan DaweEthan a dawe 21:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Btw

Any more anything from AOluwatoyin and I am going to block him indefinitely. Honestly, the legal threats should've gotten him blocked indefinitely but someone beat me to it. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And it looks like his comments on Jimbo's talk page were reverted. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
And I do apologize for not being up on this more. I've been hit by more yahoos than usual lately, including someone who said that they "liked me" and who turned out to be a sockpuppet. Not making excuses. But not enough hours in the day to stop everyone. :) --Woohookitty(meow) 12:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have got to me kidding me

Look at this and this. Good grief. --Woohookitty(meow) 01:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Note to readers: Please be aware that the two examples accessible by the links above were not written by the same individual but by two different editors. --142.161.184.39 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a moot point since you admitted on my user page that you are the same person who added to the box first posted by wolfstar. As we say in Wisconsin, it's the same difference. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, A writes a piece about C the contents of which C insists are libellous. B indicates only that the piece ought to have been published because it speaks the truth. Is B guilty of libel? Of course not, he didn't write the piece in the first place. A murders C. B testifies that C was a bastard and "deserved it". Did B murder C? Of Course not. Are you starting to see the difference now? I hope so because clearly it's not the "same difference". Just out of curiousity is this why you are called Cheeseheads? --209.115.235.79 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be condescending. My point was that you obviously agreed with it. So you were basically agreeing with a sockpuppet who has been blocked 7 or 8 times. It doesn't exactly speak highly of you. So what's the difference really? --Woohookitty(meow) 03:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I blocked AOluwatoyin indefinitely due to sockpuppet use. If anything else, it makes blocking these socks easier. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivism: most vs some

Hi I noticed that you changed the Objectivism article to state that most academics rejected it, I started a topic on the talk page to discus this point.--Dylan Lake 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAR...

Hi there, because the "Writing style" and "Fandom" sections of Chuck Palahniuk are not refed and are possibly OR, I've listed it at WP:FAR. Thanks, Mikker (...) 00:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Randall Flagg

Just wondering, do you think the article is good enough now for a Featured Article nomination?--CyberGhostface 15:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

[edit] Cults in Our Midst

I have updated the Cults in Our Midst article entry. Take a look and let me know what you think, on the article's talk page. Yours, Smeelgova 23:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book)

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book). Yours, Smeelgova 03:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I present to you this award for your hard work on the Randall Flagg article. CyberGhostface 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Chuck Palahniuk

Your recent edit to Chuck Palahniuk (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Stephen King short stories

Template:Stephen King short stories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --CyberGhostface 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/g/a/User_talk%7ELGagnon_b412.html"