If you are a part of the "counter vandal unit", why the hell did you not give the vandal of Corcoran who recently edited it a block or warning?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Odran Corcoran 19:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)He keeps undoing EVERYTHING. And there isn't a single admin who has done ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  — [Unsigned comment added by HolyChristianWarrior (talk • contribs).]

• (1) I am not convinced that he is a vandal. It sounds like a vast difference of opinion on a topic of which I know nothing. Therefore, it would not be fair to warn him against vandalism for straight point-of-view edits. He has made an edit ("forename" -> "fore name") which I reverted because it is obviously incorrect per several dictionaries; still, just an edit error and not a warnable offence. (2) I am not an admin. (3) He has already been blocked for his bad behavior [1], which seems better not much different than yours [2]. (3) You are both in danger of violating WP:3RR. (4) Breathe. (5) Deeply. -- LeCour^T:C 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• That was a very good idea to add the two different claim sections! Great step towards WP:NPOV. -- LeCour^T:C 21:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts regarding this article. Please be aware that one or more active editors are socks of previously banned editors. They're easy enough to spot as new accounts making the same edits to this one article. At least one of them is also quite abusive. Cheers, Rklawton 16:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Individuals should not be listed" in the Celebrity category.)" These are Daniel's celebrity clients. other hairstylists with wiki pages list there celebrity clientele. This is his profession and has had many reliable sources written about him. It is not out of the ordinary for someone in Daniel's profession to list clientele re: KenPaves- Jessica Simpson,etc and Jose Eber - Farrah Fawcett, Liz Taylor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasminjones (talk • contribs) 04:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

• In this edit you added the category "Celebrities". According to the description on that page, on which there are no other celebrities listed, it specifically states "Individuals should not be included in this category". So, I'm really not sure what you're objecting to. Additionally, please be aware that you are likely in violation of WP:NPOV as you are obviously commercially biased in favour of your client. -- LeCour^T:C 04:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jhfireboy/Admin Opposer Thanks

Hello, may I ask you why when you added an optical question to FirefoxRocks's RfA, why did you move the neutral counter to 0, and removed my coment about remaining neutral? The Sunshine Man 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Haven't a clue why that happened. It certainly wasn't intentional. -- LeCour^T:C 01:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Its OK, no hard feelings? The Sunshine Man 09:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not from my end. :) Hey, and thanks for being so understanding and even-keeled about it. -- LeCour^T:C 14:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the author was the one who added that ref, I think there's more than "vague resemblance" going on. On the other hand, since the author was the one who added that ref, I was about to delete it myself as a WP:COI possible issue. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard, thank you for your full support of my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday. Please feel free to drop me a line any time if I can help you in any way. Pastordavid 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Richard, thanks for participating in my RfA, which passed unopposed. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me LeCour but i must keep my signiture the same. their are to many people who know me by that name to change it now.

by the way, i like Dr. Who also. and Monty Python. intresting, no?

pardon my spelling

I Know 7 21:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What up with this Anti-Dominican Propaganda

Thanks for pointing that out the 3 rule.  — [Unsigned comment added by Avfnx (talk • contribs).]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominican_Republic&oldid=132423797  — [Unsigned comment added by 64.131.205.111 (talk • contribs).]

I've asked repeatedly to use the talk page, but that has been ignored. Example, 19:28, 20 May 2007 68.175.26.54 (Talk) (39,343 bytes) (revert use talk section)  — [Unsigned comment added by 64.131.205.111 (talk • contribs).]

On asking for sources on the racism portion of DR article.  — [Unsigned comment added by 64.131.205.111 (talk • contribs).]

What are you specifically speaking about? I didn't insert the racism portion. I was simply congradulating you on speaking to the person who put in that racism portion. Thanks for the reply. 64.131.205.111 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not me 19:11, 21 May 2007 146.95.69.173 (Talk) (38,855 bytes) (Undid revision 132499283 by Richard D. LeCour (talk)) . I am not this user! If you look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dominican_Republic#Birth_of_a_nation_Section. You'll see that I already stated that "I looked for a while on the alleged Trinitario racism and couldn't find anything on it. It seems to be some extremely creative editing which cannot be proved anywhere else. If you can find something on it then maybe it can be placed in, but I don't think it will be found." [3] Please remove the previous warning. Thank you.

The warning issued, was based on a non sourced or cited information. Not for the grammatical error. [4] 64.131.205.111 02:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominican_Republic/Archive_1&diff=prev&oldid=133316080 by Platanogenius (Talk | contribs) (DON'T ARGUE WITH THAT FARRAKHANISTIC MORON) . Assistance please. This is the 3rd attack i've received. 64.131.205.111 02:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Added warning for User talk:Platanogenius. Might I also suggest (1) toning it down a bit yourself, and (2) getting a real account number, not just an IP address. -- LeCour^T:C 02:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• • another personal attack from edward [5]. I reply to them, and use facts, but the insults being hurled at me is ridiculous. 64.131.205.111 03:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The removal of cited material and the placement of opinion may be considered to be vandalism. [6] 64.131.205.111 05:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should get over all this fighting and lets all try to be constructive(even though u were not involved)..Hey bro I Made a new section in the discussion exclusively made for expanding ideas and thougths!EdwinCasadoBaez 07:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support at my RFA. It ended successfully and I am now a glorified janitor. If I can be of any assistance please don't hesitate to contact me through my talk page. Happy editing! —Ocatecir ^Talk 18:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed you. YechielMan 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't originally insert the trinitaria racism edit. I may have overlooked it while doing another edit. It was an honest mistake at the most. [7] 68.175.26.54 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't me who did that edit. I was fixing something else but with all of the edit conflicts going on i simply added in other information with that on it. [8] though the trinitaria thing is interesting at best.. I don't believe it to be real.