User talk:Mwalla

Welcome!

Hello, Mwalla, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passive agressive

As I wrote on Yandman's page, who you fondly called a bad name:

Wow, nice to see you have some fans too. Having to work with veteran editors, everyone is so cordial to me by comparison (But that said, working with veteran editors, I am reminded of the New York Review of Books gem, "Your words are polite...but your actions are obscene." . Must be a new user who doesn't know how to be passive agressive yet. If he needs any pointers on making his words polite, but his actions obsene, have him talk to me or any other veteran editor. LOL.

Ikip (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yandman is a prick--Zacharyisawesome 19:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Zacharyisawesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacharyisawesome (talk • contribs) [reply]

Accidental rollback

Hello,

While patrolling recent changes, I accidentally undid a revision to this talk page using rollback. I immediately rolled back my own rollback, so it should now appear as if I did nothing. This should be evident in the talk page history. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly?

Whack!

(A whacking with a wet minnow)

For this diff: [1]. I do hope you were being sarcastic (and in fact it's because I assume you were I downsized the fish), but please take some time to review WP:CANVASS. We greatly frown upon canvassing of any sort at AfD, regardless of its effectiveness, as it greatly undermines the usefulness of these debates. I appreciate your willingness to see that articles remain here, but it's much better to do that by spending time working on the article than by trying to convince random passerby that it's worth keeping as is. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mwalla. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mwalla.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Clerk note: You are invited to address the issues that have been raised about your pattern of editing whilst logged in and logged out, with particular reference to the pattern on February 20th that I have analysed. Mayalld (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Benzodiazepine dependence. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ---- Nothing wrong with giving good health information ---- Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement on article wording, striking out warning, not relevant. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Literature Geek has her POV. My edits were NPOV. She accuse me of vandalism. Vandalism is page blanking or random text, none of which applies. Instead of working with editors, she just reverted others in addition to me. She is trying to take revenge on me for disagreeing with her. She thinks every medication causes addiction and depression. I have the right to edit my talk page. Mwalla (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

Nope, you did this before when I voted on an article that it should be deleted you attacked an article I had recently edited. You do this to everyone. You have attacked me and I have now exposed you on this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla. I suggest that you don't pick a fight with me. It will not do your cause of boosting the stock value of glaxosmithkline at the banking institute that you work for which is your real agenda on wikipedia. Stop attacking me or you will only end up getting blocked again because I will just keep reporting you and monitoring you and your ip socks. You may be able to push other editors around but not me. I was the only one who had the wit to look up your ip and see who you worked for and your agenda. See I have known that for a number of months but kept it to myself but you picked a fight and where did that get you? Now I am having to defend myself by exposing your real agenda on wikipedia as well as your malicious vandalism. Leave me alone and I will leave you alone or attack me and I will defend myself by exposing you and your malicious vandalism and harrassment.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]