User talk:Aim Here

I seriously doubt you have anything to say to me, but in the unlikely event you do, here's the page to do it.

Your Comments

I have reverted your comments to the closed discussion on the Community Sanction Boards. However, there is [an open Request for Comment regarding Jeffrey Merkey] where you can discuss his accusations.

Oh right, thanks. I saw that already. I'm still deciding whether mentioning something in a relatively ineffectual forum such as RfC would settle the problem, or exacerbate it. --Aim Here 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buchananj

Thank you for your kind explanation Aim Here. I admittedly have problems with bi-polar disorder so sometimes I do misinterpret things and fly off the handle occasionally. Best wishes. -- Buchananj 3:13am, 27 May 2007 (AEST)

Pete Doherty

Thanks for correcting the hoax mate. Shame Wikipedia gets so much vandalism. Maf88 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 5 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for trolling and disruption on WP:ANI. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

unblock|No warning given, no examples of bad behaviour given. I have no idea what constitutes 'trolling and disruption' other than disagreeing with Jeff Merkey. My four edits in amongst the huge discussion there have all been perfectly reasonable and aimed purely at improving the encyclopedia

I am asking the blocking administrator to comment on this request. Newyorkbrad 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock permitted. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

In a post on the blocking administrator's talk, Ugen64 has indicated he believes there is insufficient evidence to support this block, and I agree. Unblocking with the consent of ^demon, the blocking admin, as indicated above. Newyorkbrad 20:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: Newyorkbrad 20:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwork Orange

I placed {{hoax}} because it presents the entire thing as absolutely factual. It says that the Project existed to smear politicians - it didn't. It needs to be rewritten to be an article about the theory not the fact, since we can't possibly know if the fact exists.--Rambutan (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crass

I undid your revision on the CRASS page. The lyrics of "You're already dead" are of course open to various interpretations. However, the band has admitted (in The Story Of Crass book) that they weren't that interested in pacifism any more around that time. I think your edit was a bit too drastic, since it also makes the next sentences of the article look weird and unconnected. With all due respect, Rien Post 13:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh

Guess you've been vindicated: [1] [2]—Chowbok ☠ 16:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, not quite yet. What Merkey puts in his lawsuits is often, um, somewhat differently real, so I'll reserve judgement until someone other than Merkey says so. Cheers for the pointer though!--Aim Here (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Clockwork Orange (plot)

The article Clockwork Orange (plot) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has been unreferenced for more than 3-and-a-half years, surely, by now, this should have been fixed. I see no purpose served by keeping this speculation.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]