User talk:Georgeww

Michael Sneed debate

I prefaced my comments about Sneed to note that I understood how the erroneous report was made. There was nothing there that appeared to be intentionally offensive or defamatory about her actions, from my viewpoint. My views as a journalist (or as a black man for that matter) on the Don Imus affair are not germane to this conversation. I stand behind my nomination to delete the article for the reasons I have stated: the article violates WP:POINT and WP:POV. --Mhking 15:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George, I am going to ask politely. Please do not attack me or my motives personally here. It is not permitted, is a violation of WP:ATTACK, and I just plain do not appreciate it. I have acted here in good faith and respectfully ask that you do the same. I will report further violations of this sort to the administrators. --Mhking 17:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George, please do not pad every one of your comments with a keep - it looks like a very poor attempt at trying to pad the ballot (i.e., vandalism), and the admins, when they close, are keen on this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to take a moment to remind you that Don Imus has nothing to do with the subject matter of the above article or its debate. Citing Mr. Imus' own issues in any way is a non-sequitur and, as has been demonstrated, will be seen as such. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]