User talk:Docmeltdown

I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to stop a whitewashing of what Bush's done. This isn't the place, though. We aren't whitewashing anything. We are poking fun at people who do by putting an ironic and obviously biased and defensive article on Bush on a humor site, with the implication made that he sucks. We even have an article for calls him on it, which you've found since you keep posting it over the satirically defensive one. I know you don't get the joke, but believe me when I say it IS a joke. That other page is only a joke becuase it's so unfunny. Given the source material, I find that amazing. Please don't keep reverting the page to the unfunny version, because it'd make me have to ban you, and I really don't want to do that, as I feel you've got good intentions.--<<>> 18:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Real quick, I want to make it absolutely clear I DO NOT want you to leave. It is, of course, your choice. The article you prefer has been preserved as is at George Dubya Bush ever since the change was made. The feeling was that it had become too bloated (ie, had too many cooks, which spoiled the broth). I'll find the VD post where we worked on it in a bit. This was something we worked on for a while to make more subtle and coherant, and also because we hadn't seen anywhere else on the internet.--<<>> 18:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Forum:George W. Bush was where the project began. Also, you'll notice there is a link to the previous article at the top of the current George W. Bush page to the old page and the old page retained the "Previously Featured" tag. The superiority of new article was judged on its coherance, uniqueness (in fields of humor), and similarity to the "truth" (the text, as you pointed out, was originally taken directly from www.whitehouse.org, with some slight improvements, heh heh). So, anyways, I hope you aren't horribly offended by the decision that was made, and I hope you choose to continue to contribute to our site.--<<>> 18:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixing up the Dubya article sounds great! None of us wanted to bother with it. Certainly we appreciate anyone improving any of the pages on our site, and having two coherant G. W. Bush articles would thrill us to no end. Happy editing.--<<>> 19:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

HEY TOMPKINS

If you'll notice I had stopped editing the George W. Bush page after Brad Frasier was kind enough to explain why it is sitting in its current form.

Can you please remove the ban? OK? Please?

Because Tompkins isn't around (I guess), I've taken the liberty to undermine his blocking. Besides, I've always wanted to undermine Tompkins' "authority"... :D --~ sin($) ^tan(€) 20:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, there's been trouble with the Bush article lately, I guess I was probably a little trigger happy. Oh and... I did it, not Brad.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 20:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Its all good

Thanks.

I appreciate your understanding and promise to be a semi-good boy from now on...and I certainly won't touch the George W. page again unless I ask first. Mmmmmkay? :-)

question

Um...when will I be able to edit again? I was going to continue to clean up the "Dubya" page but when I hit the edit button it indicates that the ban is still there.

Thanks.

try now--<<>> 20:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Brad...it is working again.

-)

please

Please terll me the George W. Bush article is a joke, you don't think george bush is some kind of jesus or chuck norris, and that you love the george dubua bush article and think it is a hillarious mock-up of a president who has an I.Q. he could count on his fingers if he hadenough brain power to count.