User talk:Mbc362
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Archives: I |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Just archived? GWB
Oh, this page is nice and clean. Anyway, I have replied on old Bushie's talk. I do appreciate your note on my talk page; thank you very much. You've been very polite with everything. See you! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Archived, and removed messages that didn't warrant a response. Anyways, thanks for your input on the global warming section. As for the Iraq War discussion, I'm going to re-insert that material this weekend unless you have any remaining issues you want to discuss. Thanks.--Mbc362 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Great... I think we've come to a very good compromise position here (as far as Iraq goes). I like what you wrote on the talk page, I just haven't put it on the page itself yet. And you're right, Bush's WMD intel mistakes are big and have a big impact on him himself, and they deserve a good paragraph (at least) on his page. Well said. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 20:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cheers
Thanks for that matey, very kind. I shouldn't have laughed. lml, Spite & Malice 09:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, and there is nothing wrong with laughing at amusing vandalism as long as you don't encourage it.--Mbc362 11:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] plurality
hi - do you think it would be clearer to add "at least" so the phrase reads "...making him the first President elected without having at least a plurality of the popular vote since Benjamin Harrison in 1888." ? If you don't, I'll leave it as is - not a big deal either way, just maybe a litle more precise with "at least". At this point I can't tell. thanksTvoz | talk 23:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm...well a majority is also, by definition, a plurality, so it doesn't necessarily need to be changed. However, if you think the current wording could confuse people, by all means go ahead and fix it. I don't see anything wrong with adding "at least" if you think it will make it more clear.--Mbc362 00:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Nice to meet you, by the way. Apparently we're friends :) Tvoz | talk 02:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- ha ha. Nice to meet you too!--Mbc362 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Nice to meet you, by the way. Apparently we're friends :) Tvoz | talk 02:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hi
"Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved" is what your wikipedia link says regarding canvassing.
I don't think I did anything like canvassing. I don't communicate to others much. I've certainly not contacted people to stage an aggressive campaign. No disruption has been involved.
In contrast, your friend, Tvoz has done this a lot, i.e. getting others for support. Please send him the canvassing link. If I do it, Tvoz might think I'm trying to criticize. That's like if your pants are unzipped. Sometimes, it better to have the wife tell the guy what's happening.Dereks1x 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- You supported another user (to whom you had no prior contact) in their SSP case and then basically asked them to support you in your SSP case. That is considered disruptive tactics. As it was not disruptive on a large scale, I thought it was more fitting to bring it up on your talk page rather than the page for the SSP case. I meant it as a friendly warning and apologize if it came across harshly. Concerning Tvoz, her (yes, its a she not a he) comments appear to have been directed at other users who were also already dealing with you. As far as I can tell, she was explaining her suspicions to them and asking what to do, not necessarily asking for their support. Its comments such as
that may get you into trouble. Please just keep that in mind.--Mbc362 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)"My case is under my user name (Dereks1x). I am not asking you to also write a "Comment in Support by an uninterested (uninvolved) party" but I, obviously don't have any control over you!!! :)"
Oh? Ok, I'll edit that. Why did you look there at that obscure page? Hope you're not following me?Dereks1x 01:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- My what a quick response time you have! I came across your edits on the George W. Bush and John Edwards articles and looked at your contribution list. The user's name just happened to catch my eye, as did the edit summary. So in short, yes I am following you. :)--Mbc362 01:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, maybe I should have never touched the live third rail. Now people are going to accuse me of having a sockpuppet called I'm_dude2002.Dereks1x 01:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- lol...nah I wouldn't worry about that. --Mbc362 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
