User talk:Poisonous

Welcome
Have the new, improved welcome template. Long time no see! ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 03:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh, fancy. <3 --Poisonous (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Unfortunately some stupid vandal vandalized your talk page a few minutes ago. I just though i'd let you know so you don't wonder why you are getting the new messages thing. Anonymous101talk 17:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Anonymous101, I appreciate it. I find it funny I got called a fascist of all people XD --Poisonous (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Editor status
Hi Poisonous. You are doing great work and I think you should ask for Editor status. You can ask at Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions and an admin should come around and upgrade you. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. It's not that big a deal to get upgraded. Basically it's more useful for other editors so we don't have to approve every change that you make. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehehehe....*cough cough* Sorry about that. ;) Maybe I will, then. --Poisonous (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

McCain and Obama face off at debate
Hello. I come from Wikinoticias, the Spanish edition of Wikinews. I want to add an interwiki, but you are editing the article now. Can you add the interwiki later, please? Obama y McCain se enfrentan en el primer debate Thanks you so much.--Nico89abc (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just done it. Thanks you, can continue editing. --Nico89abc (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ohio mosque attacked during Ramadan service
Did you hear back from the mosque? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no. :( --Poisonous (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Review requested
Please review Disappearing life threatens biodiversity says report. Thanks.--  T harikrish  Talk 07:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Some questions
I have some questions over at Talk:Hampshire councils have £3 million invested in Icelandic banks. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews Mike Lebowitz, Chairman of The Modern Whig Party
Could you do a peer review for the article above? Thanks. --WNewsReporter (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please Read Poisonous
I would like to formally thank you for your input on my comment and for fixing my formating. I was unaware that it was unreadable. I do disagree that you said it was illegal to have CCMRF. When the Insurrection Act was amended in 2006 the action he took was very much so legal to the point that he has not used CCMRF for anything yet that violates the act. Also do not over react to CCMRF. If things go your way Obama will be sitting in office probably disbanding CCMRF. Though CCMRF looks frighting to those who oppose Bush and some who support him this is nothing to be frightened about. First of all I do not see CCMRF marching through cities killing peaceful protests. It's when these protests become to large and violent for domestic law enforcement to control for themselves that CCMRF and their non-lethal package will be needed. I am guessing that you would bring up the argument that why not give local law enforcement the non-lethal package. Well I am sorry to say it would be too costly for even a handful of law enforcement agencies to have this equipment. I would rather have CCMRF than not have it when massive violent riots occur so that law enforcement does not blunder in causing a massacre. I know that many would bring up what happened in the Civil Rights Era when the military took control. But I firmly believe this force would be trained and disciplined enough that such events do not occur. Another reason that CCMRF might be needed is in the event of a catastrophic natural disaster. I fully realize what you said about the National Guard as saying each state has it's own military basically. Well if mass rioting occurs (which I pray does not) the "military" of that sate might be over stretched and I would like to have the security and comfort that it would be taken care of in a timely manner. I would not like the idea for this to turn in the same thing that happened in India when Britain controlled it. While Ghandi peacefully protested Britain killed and massacred. If such an event did occur I would use all my power and influence to put a stop to it. Immediately. That is my argument to you. --Locke (talk) 00:54, 14October 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again fixing your formatting, please stop indenting your paragraphs, that is causing giant boxes and problems and making it entirely unreadable. Just type like the rest of us. It isn't conformity, it's just common sense, no need to be scared... :) I'm not sure why you're being so formal and uptight, but eh, whatever. I'm not sure what you mean by "my way" as I'm a Nader voter though I certainly like Obama more than McCain, but I fail to see how the subject is relevant at all. Anyways, onto your argument. Your argument seems to hinge first on that the Act is not violated because they haven't actually taken any action in domestic matters--well, I'd that they are ready and willing to is involvement enough. A gun loaded and pointed at you is involved and taking action whether the trigger is being pulled or not. When occupying a foreign country, a battleground (as the US now is), soldiers need not actually do anything--simply standing around with their guns is action enough. Now, onto after the rather irrelevant Obama/Bush thing...by domestic law I'm assuming you mean local police? However if there's a situation that the National Guard, local SWAT and riot police cannot handle, why would soldiers trained and armed to kill be able to do anything unless they outright kill random people in the crowd? Let's be reasonable here, if a few people in a protest start breaking things, more likely than not the ones being fired at will be the entire crowd, not those. And in the case of CCMRF responding to such a riot, they'll simply be firing at will at any civilians. These are soldiers trained to kill. Now, you say that the military of the state might be overstretched--yes, that's possible. So why, then, isn't Bush focusing on beefing up the National Guard and state enforcements? Why just place a small army? Do you think the small army will be ready to respond to any riot in any state? No, that's why we have National Guards, and if he was concerned about the National Guards not being equipped he could have easily given the equipment, money, human resources, and authority to each National Guard. That would have made far, far, far, far more sense if his motive is as you say. A small army that requires additional training just to be able to do what the National and local guards are able to do does not make sense. It just doesn't. Do you see my point? Now, you end with saying that you'd use your power to put a stop to it--no reassurance, and a rather pointless attempt at one, because you begin "putting a stop" to such a situation if it were to occur by denying the possibility and explaining off such a possible situation. You must admit that it is possible and that it is an odd move at best. It is better to be vigilant than try to hard to make excuses for and deny what is entirely possible. And that's my argument. :) --Poisonous (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

iDangerMouse
Hey I hope your not freaked out by me :P Huggles :) Peace 03:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Wikinews interviews UK pro darts player Kirk Shepherd
Please see concerns raised about this article on its talk page. As you were the reviewer, you may wish to revisit your review. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Philippines Supreme Court to probe leak of draft judgment in election case - I had cut the sources of duplicates. Sorry, for the bad style. I am just nervous, of again being found copyright vio vis-a-vis good style of writing. I had really put so many redundant sources. Thanks for making Wikinews better (I had a slight cold-fever, yesterday; I am not submitting this as alibi, sorry again). Merry X'mas. --Florentino Floro (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

privs
'''Note! Your privileges on English Wikinews have been reduced.'''
 * Under the Privilege expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the rights held by your user account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of privilege use.


 * Point 4 of the Privilege expiry policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of privileges. We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the privilege reduction is in no way intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing privileges is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.



--Pi zero (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)