Bateauxny

If the truth is negative and bias, so be it! What has any of McCoy's post issues, good or bad have to do with Whitman? That is point to all of this.98.94.163.97 (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

McCoy's illness

Are you going to remove all of the health issue related entries in articles like Zsa Zsa Gabor, and others who are near death? As I stated in the summary, you appear to have a bone to pick, and you mostly edit McCoy and Whitman. What's your problem? Maybe we can work out a compromise.71.85.120.252 (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That was a good edit on the Whitman page. Some of the info was already in the article and I missed it. Good job! 71.85.120.252 (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey slick, you could have at least told Gwen Gale something bad about me. You could have even showed her the cruel compliment I paid you above. Hell...you might have even mentioned that I requested to work with you, but no, the "bone to pick" was so obscene and worthy of mentioning, that you must have been literally driven insane by that remark.

I must admit I thought you were McCoy's daughter, she works the same way you do, like...tell something about someone that is a positive and turn it into a negative. Look at your complaints you presented; I helped McCoy; I was his POA, which lasted almost ten years for no pay; I complained about how the medical community failed to see McCoy's PTSD until I came along; how I got him his SSD, Texas Workman's Compensation Award, only to have the City of Austin, after another licensed attorney came on the record, refused to pay McCoy the Award, which may have saved him from his recent diagnosis and given him a few more years. If I hadn't become McCoy's POA when I did, his obituary would have been written several years ago he was in such bad shape. But let's not blame the Hero, let's blame the dirty rotten scoundrel POA! One thing is certain, you know McCoy, and are as evil as he is in keeping a secret. That is not slander, it a fact and I have the proofs, don't test me on that one! At least I was his POA, which stands for Power Of Attorney, since you might not know. At least I am not a POS like you areStruck personal attack. Franamax (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC). If you don't know what that means...look it up in the dictionary, it is somewhere between the letters A to Z! Now run along and cry to another admin about this mean old man! 71.85.120.252 (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

71.85.120.252, your above comment is why I chose not to respond to you previously because I didn't want to be a recepient of your attacks as I have seen in the past (but will now to ask that you refrain from leaving nasty comments on my talk page). I spent a little time researching the history of the article (past the last time there were such huge conflicts a few months ago), I found that on many occasions in article discussion areas and on editors talk pages you leave violent, vulgar and shameless comments to editors, admin, all the way up to the founder of Wikipedia. I also found where you have been banned/blocked on numerous occasions and should not even be editing on Wikipedia particulary the article in question. To the best of my knowledge, I have been following the Wiki guidelines and if I have not and I am notified of such, then I will learn more as to how to follow proper procedures. As far as your personal involvement with Mr. McCoy, what does that have anything to do with the latest issue of information not being properly sourced on the Charles Whitman page? Based on all the personal information you share about your involvement with Mr. McCoy and the negative things you say, I personally find it offensive that someone would share such details and could only imagine why you are no longer his Power Of Attorney, however, that is really not my business. As far as my personal involvement with Mr. McCoy, I have none, and I don't feel the need to justify to you personally as to how I came across the Charles Whitman article and why I choose to make edits to the article. I presented but one complaint based on ANI thread http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=395139145#Charles_Whitman_article because it states "if/when he shows up again, all an editor need do is let an admin know about it." And that is what I have done. The rest is not up to me Bateauxny (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean recipient? Doesn't matter really. I must admit, this is one of the most cleverly crafted AD Hominem statements I have ever read. What ever your characterizations of me are, most listed above, there is a deeper well of information you chose to ignore. Obviously, as I tried to put forth in the comment you are responding to, you looked at all of the negatives, and blew away the positives, for this essay you present on my exchanges. You show no evidence of what may have prompted the responses, created the anger, or anything to give some benefit of answering the question, "Why does he act this way", when the answers are in the exchanges. If, as you note,you were "afraid" I would leave violent, vulgar and shameless comments on your page, didn't you respond to the reasonable request to work with you (posted above) towards a compromise or understanding? Why didn't you thank me for the positive comment on your edit (also above)! Also, why am I a target of your self-interest into my past? We've had too few exchanges for that! Why did you take he time to investigate me, when you could have been positively contributing to the article, or any other article on Wikipedia?! You exclusively intervened with my edits only on the Whitman article, and specifically McCoy entries. That is stalking for a cause, and you have an agenda!

Now, if you really want to find the Genesis of the problems with Wikipedia and myself, which even Wales failed to address in your "snitch clause" above, always start at the beginning, and overlook nothing! The first name you come across in the Whitman article history will be Sherurcij, that is his moniker. I was subwayjack then, that was my moniker, that is where you need to start. Your observations above are like coming to a brawl, and blaming the first person you see striking someone else, as the instigator, who knows who started what, except those who were there in the beginning. Everything you have said, tells me, you were NOT there in the beginning. Unless you are a sock yourself, with "a bone to pick!" One last thing, Wikipedia had a lot of problems back several years ago with edit conflicts. I would prepare a response to an allegation or falsehood that would take up to an hour to compose, only to find that I had been blocked or banned, during an important discussion, or contribution. So yes, I have become snippy on WP, WP is the cause of it. Do you find any reference to my bad behavior in the media interviews I did that are referenced in the article? No! So whether your characterizations above are correct or not, you have added to them, as I find you...to be very disingenuous, based upon the history. 71.85.120.252 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: As to your question about the article being properly sourced, it was, about 45 reversions ago! 71.85.120.252 (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

please go to talk:Charles Whitman

Per subject line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.120.252 (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sad

This is sad [[1]]!

You've brought these matters up because you can not win points on your false arguments - even after they have been shown to you. That is passive-aggressive, and that is not a personal attack, it is a plea for you to seek help for it. You are a person who when they can't get their way, go crying to someone because the person who shows you your errors, is wrong; and they don't understand that you are right - all the time! I showed you your error on the link you claimed didn't work, I provided a source that would work for helping with your objections, and what do you do...go crying to the admin board. How sad! If this is taken as a personal attack - it is a justified one! 71.85.120.252 (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Note

As per the ANI discussion, 71.85.120.252 is a sock of a banned user, and its posts are subject to removal on sight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)