NOTE: IF YOU ARE ANONYMOUS, AND POST ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE, YOU WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.

Hi RickK,

Just went through Newpages and I thought I wanted to let you know that there is a template {{POV check}} for articles that may be biased/POV to be used rather than {{POV}}, which is usually reserved for POV/biased articles that are disputed between editors.

- Mailer Diablo 10:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is back. Haven't been involved in the VfD so I don't want to delete it, just a note to let you know. Rich Farmbrough 13:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's back. Resistance Manifesto. -Willmcw 00:43, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. -Willmcw 01:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently a chief concern of the "Resistance Movement" is the monument known as the Georgia Guidestones. Links to the recreated article re-appear there occasionally. AFAIK, the "movement" is a website. Thanks for your efforts. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:23, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I guess not. However, he's most likely a sockpuppet and probably a troll. Feel free to unblock though—I don't mind at all. Neutrality^talk 05:47, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Rick, our new Glaswegian chum appears to be well versed in Wikipedia, creating nested macros. See his use of {{User:212.100.250.215/0808 570567|service=[[social science]]|name=John McGloin, [[Glasgow]]}} here. I've never yet gone through the process of proposing to delete a macro and right now lack the necessary time to read up on the procedure. Over to you I'm afraid. (No need to reply; but if you do, please reply here rather than on my page. Thanks.) -- Hoary 08:16, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

I didn't create a bogus userpage: it was my userpage. I don't agree with the racist remarks that were made above and will be making a formal complaint by email to Jimbo Wales. Reply here.--212.100.250.215 08:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

LOL. RickK 08:30, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

...on the other side of you face soon.

You deleted this article, but I could find no evidence of a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/California English, so I restored it. It seems like a perfectly reasonable article. I'm curious why you thought it should be deleted. Nohat 08:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)