User talk:Sanddancer

This user is quite blatantly a sock puppet of multiply-banned [removed] née Spawnopedia née ColScott, as evinced by the obsession with the Manson case (called for speedy deletion on Tom DeSanto and Charles "Tex" Watson), by the personal vendetta against Kynn (called for deletion of Pima Community College), and the vandalization of the Jane Hamsher page (speedy deletion again). --Kynn 08:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to grace your comments with a reply. TOM DESANTO has nothing to do with the Manson case- did you read the article?

Further

The other articles were nominated for deletion for real reasons which ANY user may do. Sanddancer 16:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except banned users logging on as sock puppets. --Kynn 16:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have familarized myself over the last 5 minutes with your obsession with Spawnopedia who slammed your friend the blogger. I am not he. And blatantly lying will not make me so. Tom Desanto appears to be a b list movie producer, NOT a member of the Manson Family. And again, if you think my nominations are wrong, PLEASE edit the articles. IMPROVE them. In your friend's case. assert why she is notable. There are a million bloggers out there. Is SHE notable because she had a movie producing career 8 years ago? Is she notable because of the racist cartoon? Figure out why she is notable and amend the article so that the template can be removed.Sanddancer 16:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once more you're making the same claims in the same tone and style as your previous (now banned) identities, and making changes to pretty much the exact same entries. You're really the worst sock puppet ever. (If anyone reads this, you should be aware that the claim that I'm friends with Jane Hamsher is a complete fabrication designed to discredit me, not that anyone believes this guy.) --Kynn 16:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Hamsher

Being a producer of a major motion picture is enough notability to avoid a *speedy* delete tag (which requires no *assertion* of notability). Please do not re-add the speedy tag to this article. NawlinWiki 16:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The entire article violates strict BLP which tag can you suggest? Thank you in advance.Sanddancer 03:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article in no way violates "strict BLP." Stop trolling already. --Kynn 08:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear- question was addressed to non-abusive user Nawlin. Sanddancer 16:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Jane Hamsher. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Satori Son 17:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]