"== A barnstar for you! == 

 {| style=""background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"" 
 |rowspan=""2"" style=""vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;"" |  
 |style=""font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;"" | The Barnstar of Diligence 
 |- 
 |style=""vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;"" | For attention to detail in current affairs articles   
 |} 

 == A barnstar for you! == 

 {| style=""background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"" 
 |rowspan=""2"" style=""vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;"" |  
 |style=""font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;"" | The Original Barnstar 
 |- 
 |style=""vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;"" | I found your update to the Julian Lewis biog. very interesting. I note your use of the word 'posed'. Any further into' on this? He had claimed to be a member of the Labour Party. Tony Kelly (Wiki: Kellybfd)    
 |} 

 == 3RR == 

 A ""heads-up"" for WP:EW.  Cheers.  Please self revert your last edits, and discuss on the Daily Mail talk page.    

 == Nadine Dorries == 

 The blog contains valid criticism of the remarks, the version without contains NO criticism for these remarks. (Which, by any measure are foul and objectionable) They may not meet your standard, by they meet mine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by   •    

 :Read my comments on your talk page which explain why I reverted. It is WP standards which I am adhering to, not my own. Dorries has many authoritative critics who can be cited in the article. We already have a comment from Chris Bryant and the responses of others are sumnarrised. Forgive me for not naming you directly but someone who uses abusive coarse slang as a user name is difficult to respond to.    

 OK, allow me to get this ""sumnarrised"" for you: Bryant's remarks do not refer to the abuse remarks. As for the blog, did you, or Wikipedia, or anyone else expect a victim of childhood sexual abuse to use their own name (or perhaps post their home address?) on a blog? By posting the article, of which I included no content and referred to it as an ""attack"", which is what it is whether you agree with it or not, allows people to read it's remarks, consider that it is written under a pseudonym and, you know, decide for themselves. I would also remind you that Dorries stated that she thought sex education led to the rape and molestation of children. Read that again: CHILDREN. She wasn't saying that she didn't like IKEA FFS.... your version eliminates criticism and gives her a free ride. 

 As for the user name, are you serious?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by   •    

 ::Bryant's response is to the bill which Dorries supported. You are repeatedly missing the point as to what is acceptable on WP. Disruptive editing, of which missing the point is one example, leads to blocks. Is this clear for you toss.er.live?    

 Bryant's criticism was of the BILL, the blog criticises the Dorries comments on the bill. Is that clear for you? The full post is now: ""Her remarks were attacked on the nightmaresandboners.com blog by ""Vanessa"", a writer who claims to be a victim of childhood sexual abuse, in an article titled ""Nadine Dorries Thinks I Was Asking For It.""[43]"" This is factual and allows any reader to choose to read the attack or not but also allows them to decide on the validity of the contents, your interpretation of the ""rules"" may not allow for that, but you are assuming I care what you think, ""blocking"" and further editing is shutting out valid criticism of an political position which is disingenuous at best, your (sorry...) interpretation allows Dorries to dodge responsibility for her statements. Take you blinkers off, man.... or did your NKVD app