User talk:Bushit

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. You might like to start by reading the tutorial and introducing yourself at the new users page. For ideas of what to put on your user page, see Wikipedia:User page. (BTW, great user name!!)

If you have any questions, you can ask at the help desk or on my talk page. Two useful tips are that you can sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) and you can preview your changes before you save using the show preview button. You can regularly find new tips on the Community Portal. I look forward to reading your great articles and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. 172 09:51, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Funny pics-- but please become a legit user!

Please refrain from vandalism such as your recent edits of the George W. Bush article. This undermines the credibility of wikipedia, and Bush has committed enough crimes that you can document without using smear words and propaganda. [[User:Get-back-world-respect|Get-back-world-respect]] 09:57, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Get-back-world-respect's right. Image:Shytole.jpg would be great on your user page, but not in the Bush article. 172 10:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Berlusconi

Your edits to the Silvio Berlusconi article were vandalism. However, if done appropriately, they would probably fit well into the article. Stargoat 20:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Great work on Jacques Chirac! 172 22:56, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User Name

Hi, I must disagree with 172's remark regarding your user name of Bushit.

From Wikipedia:Username#Choosing a username:

Remember that a controversial name may colour other users' perspective on your own credibility or political viewpoint. In addition remember that Wikipedia is a world-wide source book and so take care in selecting a name to avoid anything that might potentially cause offence to someone from a different culture, religious or ethnic group.

Wikipedia recommends that users avoid

# names of politicians, military or religious figures or events;

# any other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or endorsing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure.

People should be able to judge you purely on your contributions, not an emotional response to a potentially controversial nickname. Avoiding an offensive or insensitive name is in your own interest. So do please be careful. Remember you are working as part of a community. Show everyone else the respect for their beliefs that you expect them to show to you.

From Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames

No inflammatory usernames: Wikipedia does not allow inflammatory or offensive user names. Inflamatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. This includes, but is not limited to:

* Names which promote racial/ethnic/national/religious hatred.

* Names which are recognised as racial/ethnic/national/religious slurs.

* Names which refer to symbols of racial/ethnic/national/religious hatred.

* Names which refer to sexual acts or genitalia

* Names which refer to violent real world actions

* Names which are scatalogical or pornographic

No harassing or defamatory usernames: Harassment and defamation is in any case inappropriate on Wikipedia. Further, your username is not a vehicle to attack other users with whom you have a disagreement. Your username should not be used to insult or mock other users, usernames, articles, or actions. Additionally, a username should not be used to defame other people, companies or groups, regardless of whether they edit Wikipedia.

As of 20:15 on 2 Jul 2004, your contributions have been vandalism to George W. Bush and Silvio Berlusconi and a meaningful contribution to Jacques Chirac.

With all of this in mind, I must ask you to refrain from vandalism and I humbly request that you change your user name.

Thank you, Chris N. 01:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

French joke

I like the french map of the world you posted. You might like this too: http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/money_politics_law/americas_world.htm Seabhcan 21:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Iraq/Oil

1st let me set a few things straight, I'm not American believe it or not. I'm well behind one of John Kerry's campaign slogans "like father like son, one term and you're done." I believe that W is not worthy of the office of POTUS (not that Clinton was perfect but at least there was a mind at work). And while I may have sympathy with the argument that Bush's motivation was driven by oil I cannot accept that the same is true of Blair. Unlike Bush he is not linked to the oil industry personally or through his cabinet (Cheney). While Blair has made mistakes and is not perfect I believe he was and is sincere.

You also claim that over 50% of Americans think the war was for oil, get your facts right. While a majority now say the war was a mistake over 50% think it's made America safer. I haven't seen any data about oil, please provide it. I think we're on the same side, I just believe in objectivity. Mark 23:48, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Try Google... "iraq"+"euro" ;-) and enjoy yourself!

That's it, go and change the argument. You claimed that more than 50% of Americans think the war was for oil. Again I challenge you to provide some evidence of this. Took your suggestion above, which does provide significant hypothesis regarding the motivation for oil (from the sources you would expect), but doesn't support your claim of American public opinion which was my argument.

Could you please clarify for me the link between the Bushit and 213.140.6.103 usernames. I'm assuming they're one and the same (the quality and accuracy of edits are of a similar standard) in which case you should go to preferences and choose to remain logged in across sessions. Cheers. Mark 10:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

American NPOV

You don't really think that nonsense like this is going to stick around, do you? At least make SOME effort to write encyclopedic articles. Further such contributions are not appreciated. The image you uploaded of George Bush is equally unacceptable. RickK 04:26, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Really, the American NPOV was only a try, a sort of joke, I wrote the page a-la Michael Moore Style too see what the page will be after some furious debate, I do not wrote that page to offence anyone anyhow, for that its so funny, there was a French comedian actor in the 80's named Coluche well knowed for this sort of style of funny talking about politics, so much people appreciated him!

But please, don't feel offenced by that page if you are American, its a joke, ok? (only ONE American family should be offenced...) :-)

Article on Franco German locomotive

Hi, while Franco German locomotive is a legitimate topic for Wikipedia, a lot of the current article seems to me -- frankly said -- really weird and a-historical. E.g, what you wrote about coalitions before 1949 mixes up at least three different historical periods. I'm not an historican myself, but I know enough about the topic to know that what you have written is confusingly written at best and wrong at worst. Could you either research this topic better before writing about, or stop writing nonsense? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 15:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer -- as I have found out now, most of the article was a copyvio (copyright violation) of http://www.ahtg.net/TpA/frgercom.html. This lead to two problems: one is the probleme of copyright violation. The other, more serious probleme is that this page is part of an alternate history website, describing a Europe and a European history that never was. There never was an European Confederation, nor a Combine Assembly, not a Brandenburg and Saxon republic. It is not that you were using the wrong terms, but the wrong parallel universe altogether. I fixed this (by deleting most of the article), but hope you will not do this again. But I am curious: did you do it on purpose? Or didn't you know enough about French-German history to see that it wasn't an "older review" (as you wrote in your answer on my Talk page), but fiction? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 22:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FYI

You've been listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bushit.

Vandalism

You didn't really think that photo was going to stick around, did you? RickK 23:19, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hey good on ya

Bush is a fool. But, you probbly shouldnt vandalise the articles... they re pretty strict on that. Just have a very Bushit user page. BTW, i just love that name, "Bushit", that is quality! Plough talk to me 07:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:TAAF-coat_of-arms.png

Thanks for uploading Image:TAAF-coat_of-arms.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)