User talk:OldRight

My original account name was Old Right, but I've changed it to simply OldRight. This is because for some reason I can't get into my "Old Right" account (even though I saved the password on the "Create account / log in" page) and I've forgotten my password. -- OldRight 02:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am likely to VFD your Democrat category. This category would be insufficient in its current form unless it had every blooming Democrat in the Wikipedia inside of it, and that is not only insane but also quite unneeded. 24.76.141.128 02:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough

I am inclined to agree with removing the Lori Klausutis paragraph as it really has no point, but the people who are deleting the paragraph really need to make their case instead of deleting it. I am restoring the paragraph until you or Mirror Vax explain your side, as we're all waiting in order to fully debate this. Conradrock 06:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed your response, however, it still doesn't explain the reverts without participating in the discussion regarding the article. I do agree to removing the paragraph in question; but since you and User:MirrorVax were the ones instigating the deletion, it was up to you two to respond to the other parties in the dispute. Instead, you just deleted the paragraph with no edit summary. I have nothing against you other than that, lack of participation in an RFC process, lack of utilization of edit summaries, and lack of response to mine and other's attempts to quell the situation. --Conradrock 21:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have requested arbitration against you. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Sincerely --Neutrality^talk 01:13, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for your reasoned response to my accusation. You and Crevaner do seem to have stopped the double voting some months ago. Since you admit that it wasn't a good idea, I don't see any reason to pursue the matter. - SimonP 21:38, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 19:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dennis Miller

That yahoo keeps vandalizing poor ol' Dennis Miller, for reasons best known to his bean-brained self. I've given up reverting his perversions. Good luck. In fact, he reverted your reversion. He must check that entry 100 times a day to see if anyone has removed his stupid comments. Wahkeenah 2 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)

Laurie Coleman

While I agree that pro-life is a legit term, in this article, it is talking about Casserly and her activism against abortion. She may be a pro-lifer, but she was well known for her crusade against abortion, not the death penalty, euthenasia, etc. Let me know why you think that putting abortion in the article is incorrect and pro-life is correct. (looks like it was taken out of the article) MicahMN | Talk 01:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Arbitration case

The Arbitration case against you has been closed, with you placed on Probation for one year (until 14 September 2006).

Yours,

James F. (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MAN, that's good to know. Good for Wikipedia for spanking a silly, worthless vandal. Must be pretty humiliating 69.64.213.146 10:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Sorry about the arbitration verdict. I have a question: IYHO, which is the greater enemy, "liberalism" or "neoconservatism"? Just curious. --Midnite Critic 23:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response.--Midnite Critic 01:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. presidential election, 2002 (fictional)

Thanks a LOT for adding the electoral vote count, I could find the popular count online but I didn't have the episode on DVD to find the electoral count! Thanks again. Staxringold 15:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WW time skew

Please discuss your changes to the article Timeline skew theories for The West Wing on the talk page. We have absolutely no citations for any of the information such as the Key Biscayne fact, or even that this meeting was going to take place. If you read the sections above the theory you are changing, you will see that much of the information you keep adding back is already in the article. Please come to Talk:Timeline skew theories for The West Wing before changing the page again. -Scm83x 21:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]