Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Michaelm

message: If he's being so disruptive and violating the 3RR rule, why hasn't he been banned? --Spinboy 18:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: I'm going to respond here to what you said on my talk page: "engnerince in some caseis" 
This brings up another point. You appear to have difficulty with English, which is not a huge deal, but I don't think it's wrong to ask you to please use a spell check before you post to talk pages or edit articles. Otherwise every edit to an article you make necessitates an edit by someone else to correct your grammar and spelling. Please use a spell check and repeat your message to me, I'm unsure of what you mean when you say "engnerince". Kurieeto 13:44, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC) 
I also agree with Kurieeto that you should spell check your edits. You can do this by typing them in Microsoft Word or Corel Wordperfect, using the spell check, and then copying what you have written into the article. Kevintoronto 14:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments removed from [[User_Talk:Michaelm]] by Michaelm

message: I posted these messages today on his talk page:
Michaelm,
Even though many editors have noted their objections to your behaviour at Wikipedia talk:Request for comment/Michaelm, and you have refused to respond to or acknowledge these valid complaints, you are returning to the same pattern of behaviour that has caused so much trouble in the past. 
*You have returned to New Democratic Party of British Columbia to change the ideology from "Social democratic and democratic socialist" to "social democratic" even though solid evidence had been provided that the party calls itself "democratic socialist" and, as usual, you have provided no evidence for your change. 
*You have made the same change to other provincial NDPs without providing evidence. 
*You have also changed the Moderate Party of Sweden and several Moderate Party politicans from "liberal-conservative" to "conservative". Where is your evidence for this change? 
*You are continuing to be disruptive and wasting the time of other Wikipedians. 
*You are not showing any intention of working with others to resolve these probelms, or of changing your behaviour. What is your problem? 
If you delete this from your Talk page, as you have all previous attempts to reasons with you, I will just re-post it, so don't bother. Ground Zero 14:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Up to his old tricks

message: I have posted the following on Michaelm's Talk page:
Michaelm, I regret having to take this next step, but it seems that you are unwiling to keep the promises you have made in the past about providing explanations and evidence for your edits. I am proposing that we enter into the Mediation proceess to resolve our diffrerences. Please review Wikipedia:What_is_mediation%3F and Wikipedia:Mediation. If you are willing to participate in a mediation process, plaese let me know. If not, I will take this to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Ground Zero 20:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be co-operative and reasonable and I just log on at 03:55 and I will work with you to billed a stronger encyclopedia with research. And I should not be so unilateral. I don't think Mediation or Arbitration is needed because I will be more then willing to help. If Mediation is need I will do it. Michaelm 04:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: I nominated this article, created and so far exclusively written by Michael, on VfD. Samaritan 18:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eco-Social Democracy]]