User talk:Libsmasher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello Libsmasher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

chocolateboy 17:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Mike Farrell

I have removed the excerpt from frontpagemag from the body of the article and added more information to help users follow through to frontpagemag's critical article on Farrell's politics. Hopefully this will help the article flow more without cutting out an important contra-view. Please check. Paulleake 22:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Paulleake, thanks. This guy has been getting a free pass for too long. He needs to be deported along with a few others like him. Libsmasher

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

chocolateboy 01:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liberalism

Please stop vandalizing pages. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lucidish 15:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Lucidish, from your view it may be vandalism but it is an OPPOSING VIEW and is documented as per the rules.
I am referring to your vandalism of the Liberalism page. I have no idea what "Asner" is. Lucidish 23:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
That was vandalism? Sorry, I'll provide the verifiable link next time. Regards.

The revisions under dispute are as follows:

Revision as of 14:30, 14 December 2005

Revision as of 22:03, 13 December 2005

Verification is not the issue. Vandalism is. Lucidish 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

All three apply to liberalism. I'll research the links and post for you. You seem very concerned about this issue. I believe that Winston Churchill said it best:
"To be conservative at 20 is heartless and to be a liberal at 60 is plain idiocy."
Maybe I should have used Idiocy vice Lunacy? Thoughts?

See paragraph 1 of this section. Lucidish 18:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Read it Lucidish. Churchill had the right of it. BTW, I work with liberals who fit all three categories simultaneously! Too bad I cannot reference them, perfect example.

[edit] Censorship

chocolateboy, it is common for people to censor things that they don't like to read here? It must be H*LL having to deal with academic censorship and closed minds.

Hi.
Thanks for your email.
It's common for new users to get a welcome message. Sorry you didn't get one. Just rectified that. As for "censorship", please take a look at some of the links above, particularly the one I highlighted, and Wikipedia:NPOV. As for adding "See also Stupidity" to Liberalism [1], "ANTI-AMERICAN" to Mike Farrell [2], and nonsense to Ed Asner [3], see the comment about vandalism above.
chocolateboy 17:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

chocolateboy, just testing the system, nothing more.

I myself believe in posting BOTH sides of the story. That one-sided liberal bias I can get from the liberally-biased media.

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/libsmasher

Hi, just came across this. Given the fact that you are only a day old in terms of editing and that you have less than 50 edits, it is highly improbable that you would be entrusted with adminship. Hence, I suggest that you nominate this rfa of yours for speedy deletion by informing any of the administrators (including me). You may also want to see WP:NPA, WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. WP:NOT may also be useful. --Gurubrahma 17:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Echo what Gurubrahma just said. Your RfA will almost certainly fail. --Durin 18:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Let it ride. Are you all afraid of honest editing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by libsmasher (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 December 2005.

  • Honest editing doesn't have anything to do with it. Two people who are experienced with RfA are telling you that your RfA would most likely fail. We do not want to see a promising editor be harmed by a process that can at times be very hostile to newcomers. Be patient. If you want to be an admin, I recommend waiting until you have at least 1,000 edits and three months under your belt. 2,000 edits and six months is even better. --Durin 19:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No sweat gents. Been through worse. Go for it! --Libsmasher

[edit] Correct me if I'm wrong

but your username seems to be a form of trolling--172.172.197.68 18:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is the truth. To me, there is nothing more satisfying than crushing the myths that a liberal lives by, i.e., that FDR solved the Great Depression, that JFK actually WON the 1960 election, or that LBJ's war on poverty, the cost at over 30 TRILLION dollars, was effective.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/b/User_talk%7ELibsmasher_5840.html"