Changes

:Oh really? What's this? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_on_the_Couch Bush on the Couch] and this [http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html Addiction, Brain Damage and the President] or this [http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April05/slime-mold.Bush.Cheney.ssl.html Slime Mold Beetle named for Bush] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agathidium_rumsfeldi]  All this found its way into the GW mainspace.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Oh really? What's this? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_on_the_Couch Bush on the Couch] and this [http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html Addiction, Brain Damage and the President] or this [http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April05/slime-mold.Bush.Cheney.ssl.html Slime Mold Beetle named for Bush] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agathidium_rumsfeldi]  All this found its way into the GW mainspace.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

The articles that you are citing are not part of the article on George W. Bush in Wikipedia.  The "Bush on the Couch" article describes a book by that name and has a section the presents pro and con criticism of that book.  The other articles aren't part of Wikipedia at all.  Wikipedia has a whole section of books about George Bush and Hillary Clinton and divides them neatly into pro and con categories.  [[User:Wismike|Wismike}}  

The articles that you are citing are not part of the article on George W. Bush in Wikipedia.  The "Bush on the Couch" article describes a book by that name and has a section that presents pro and con criticism of that book.  The other articles aren't part of Wikipedia at all.  Wikipedia has a whole section of books about George Bush and Hillary Clinton and divides them neatly into pro and con categories.  [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]  

I find it interesting that RobS justifies smearing Clinton in this article on the basis of smears against George Bush he alleges to have found on the internet at large. Sounds like he's got a small chip on his shoulder that is having a negative affect on his editorial policies. NitramNos 13:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I find it interesting that RobS justifies smearing Clinton in this article on the basis of smears against George Bush he alleges to have found on the internet at large. Sounds like he's got a small chip on his shoulder that is having a negative affect on his editorial policies. NitramNos 13:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)