I will email you at the hotmail address you gave. Conservative 17:13, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative
I just emailed you at the hotmail account you gave.
I just emailed you at the hotmail account you gave. Conservative 17:17, 8 March 2007 (EST)conservative
I wanted to help you more but....
I wanted to help you more but you didn't provide a link to the "speed of light" article in question. If you have a Admin request again please provide me a link as my time to help people here is limited. Conservative 16:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
I implemented your changes to the light article and am going to issue a warning to the other user
I implemented your changes to the light article and am going to issue a warning to the other user. Conservative 16:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
Austin, while a I agree that Tony Blair is unfortunately quite liberal, calling him a "socialist" without citation is a bit over the top, I think. Could you alter or support that claim better? Thanks.--Aschlafly 09:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)
- I've rephrased it slightly and referenced appropriately. Sorry. I was letting my personal fears of a socialist influence on global society cloud my judgement. --AustinM 09:19, 10 March 2007 (EST)
- Hi, I saw your edit to the Labour Party article & I think some sort of consensus is needed re. exactly what a 'socialist' party is. The British Labour Party indeed says it is one, while in practice being one of the more right-wing parties in the European social-democratic group. To call Labour 'socialist' puts it in the same category as, for example, Zapatero's PSOE (Spain) - considerably more socialist than anything Blair could run - or (even further to the left) Chávez, Morales etc. Labour used to be hard-left, but became 'New' Labour because of its unelectability. I'd suggest describing the party, in its modern incarnation, as 'social democrat'. Look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter. --Rafa 16:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Your writing style
Although I apprciate your desire to eradicate liberal bias, I do not believe that adding unsourced, radical statements to articles is the appropriate manner in which to implement this desire. Please try to keep your own opinions out of articles. Geekman314(contact me) 19:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Liberal outside of the US
Hi Austin You cannot call liberals outside of the US socialists. Neither are socialists abroad liberal. In many countries, the Liberals are either moderates or right-wing. Examples are the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria. The Australian PM, from the Liberal Party, is one of the staunchest supporters of President Bush. For liberal parties in Europe check , for socialist parties check . These are different organizations, different parties. -- Order 12 March 2007, 23:41 (AEST)
Austin, I just wrote a paper on why marijuana should be full out legalized in Canada, for my class on the Sociology of Deviance: Drug Culture. I would like to mention that as a result of one of my jobs, I am obligated to uphold the laws of Canada, and cannot engage in that sort of activity. In actuality, I don't smoke pot. It's actually a pretty hot issue here in Canada right now. Pot only became illegal in Canada in 1923, prior to becoming illegal in the US (if I recall correctly). But, what is interesting, is that it wasn't made illegal because of public outcry; it was added as an afterthought when writing legislation against opium dens. Nobody in the House of Commons noticed (or objected) to its being illegal. I don't want to colour your views, but if you're interested, I can provide you with some really good links to academic resources on the subject. I used to be vehemently against drug use altogether, but I no longer see pot as harmful. Cheers, --TrueGrit 00:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Welcome as SYSOP!
- What did I do wrong?
- "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..." (John 8:7)
- JC 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- May I safely assume that the Protestant view point isn't worth mentioning?
- I will bear that in mind for the future.
- Thank you for the explanation.
- "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"(Romans 3:23)
- JC 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Orochi did this  and I understood this to warrant infinite duration.
British Conservative Prime Ministers
I note you have deleted virtually all material from Margaret Thatcher and John Major (in Major's case reducing the article to the single line "He is noted for achieving very little"). You have given no explanation for this - please could you clarify why you have done it? Tracy C Copeland 12:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- see my response Tracy C Copeland --AustinM 13:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- You have reverted my lengthy entry on John Major to the single line "While in office he achieved very little". You claim I am making 'untrue allegations', however if you check the link I provided on my revision, the source for the "untrue" information is the Conservative Party's own website. Tracy C Copeland 15:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
any page that is clearly s joke, you can delete without discussion. --TimSvendsen 13:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Austin, you have been asked, quite nicely and repeatedly, to explain your wholesale removal of paragraphs of material I included in Margaret Thatcher, after is was vandalized, as requested of me by Andrew Schlafly. You removed lots of material, without ever leaving a note or comment. Whats up with that?
Sorry, but I really don't see where this is coming from. I think the previous version was stated in a clearer manner. And anybody with an iota of knowledge about how the Google PageRank system works (albeit, not many people do) knows that accusing it of a "liberal bias" is completely laughable. Thoughts? --Hojimachongtalk 18:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
- I would suppose the objection is that the Owners, Sergei and Larry, refuse to remove the "failure" link to George Bush, which was achieved through a manipulation of their system, for purely political purposes. Just my guess. :p --~ Terry Talk2Me! 18:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Your recent edits
By all means add the creationist position to articles, but don't state it as uncontested fact. Tsumetai 11:25, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- And what exactly is wrong with the claim that condoms help to prevent the transmission of HPV? Restoring a cited statement is not 'vandalism' by any reasonable definition. Your repeated removal of that claim could well fit the bill, however. Tsumetai 11:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Why are you removing sourced facts from the HPV page?Murray 11:33, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Austin, please read the report you cited about condom effectiveness. It does not say what you are claiming it says.--Dave3172 11:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Yes it does. "All published epidemiologic studies of HPV have methodologic limitations that make the effect of condoms in the prevention of HPV infection unknown. While a few studies on genital HPV and condom use showed a protective effect, most studies on genital HPV infection and condom use did not show a protective effect."--AustinM 11:55, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Whilst perusing the block log I noticed you blocked Brooker but in going through his edits I didn't see anything that he was doing that could be considered "trouble". Rob PommerTALK 13:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Revert war over maintenance
(sigh) Requesting sysop assistance because TK is creating a double redirect:
I have attempted to fix this double redirect two times, and both got reverted by TK. I assume he sees my routine repair as an attack on his User Talk page, so I need sysop authority to get the permission to fix things. The page is now also protected in its broken state, so I definitely need a sysop now.
So: I officially request the opinion of sysops User:Aschlafly, User:TK, User:Conservative, User:CPAdmin1, User:CPWebmaster, User:Ed Poor, User:David_R, User:AustinM, User:Geo.plrd, and User:Tsumetai to get a poll of roughly 33% of all sysops for this undoubtedly critical change to a User page.
As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --BenjaminS 23:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
You typed Christian on your user page without a capital letter. This is either a secret signal to the Communist Moles, or an oversight on your part. After correcting it feel free to delete this comment from your talk page. Human 18:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Your edit about how Sikhs should "not be confused with Muslims" due to their beards could be construed as racism by some. DanH 01:36, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I knew they weren't racist, but I was just saying that they could be misinterpreted. DanH 02:38, 18 May 2007 (EDT)