→Personal?: removed banned editors socking and rude comments |
97.160.120.56 (talk) Undid revision 371722817 by Crohnie (talk)LEAVE IT ALONE CRONE AND WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN TALK PAGE! <|8~P |
||
Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
The banned and "indeffed" SRQ is undoubtedly still at it[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DocOfSoc&diff=371652286&oldid=371615891]. These "redhead" comments are slightly [[WP:OUTING|disturbing]] - "ginger-bashing" at the very best? ;P I would like to create the category "Confirmed Sockpuppets of SkagitRiverQueen", but I don't know exactly which IP's that can be proved through behavior (since the list keeps growing). I think 99% of them, but that's just me. Sabra2 and UrbanCowboy12 for sure - can I add the appropriate templates to the obvious IP's? It's all academic at this point, but it should be noted, as the socking has not stopped... [[User:Doc9871|Doc9871]] ([[User talk:Doc9871|talk]]) 08:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
The banned and "indeffed" SRQ is undoubtedly still at it[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DocOfSoc&diff=371652286&oldid=371615891]. These "redhead" comments are slightly [[WP:OUTING|disturbing]] - "ginger-bashing" at the very best? ;P I would like to create the category "Confirmed Sockpuppets of SkagitRiverQueen", but I don't know exactly which IP's that can be proved through behavior (since the list keeps growing). I think 99% of them, but that's just me. Sabra2 and UrbanCowboy12 for sure - can I add the appropriate templates to the obvious IP's? It's all academic at this point, but it should be noted, as the socking has not stopped... [[User:Doc9871|Doc9871]] ([[User talk:Doc9871|talk]]) 08:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
[[WP:OUTING]]? Not in the slightest! Try this on for size: "Before I do anything drastically redheaded ;-)" -> [[User:JoyDiamond]], (from your own talk page DummyDoc9871) on 2 June 2010 at 21:32. LOL! Yep! Idiots, complete idiots! <|8~P |
Revision as of 17:17, 4 July 2010
- Please replace {{Wikipedia:WikiOgre/topicon}} with {{WikiOgre}}
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
bubble tea
Just to say...
...thanks. You know why. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
- No problem! Hey, check this out... I was looking into SRQ's earliest edits, and came across this, which led me to
- this (esp. this). Then this and this. Coincidence, I'm sure (the other editor clearly seems to be someone else): but it's kinda creepy, no? Cheers ;> Doc9871 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Both of those in your PS should be marked as a banned user. I totally believe it's her. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is kind of creepy. See your email. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hey guys, email me if you wouldn't mind so that I stay in the loop. :) Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Bundy
Hey thanks for fixing those markup codes. The sentence "True crime writer Ann Rule, who knew Bundy personally, believes it was around 1969, shortly after a traumatic breakup with his college girlfriend.[5]" which I moved while breaking the WML seems to be referring to the beginning of his killing spree. Lower you will read that according to Ann Rule he travelled to check his birth records back in 1968.
"She ended the relationship after her 1968 graduation and returned to her family home in California, fed up with what she described as Bundy's immaturity and lack of ambition. Thrown into a deep depression by the breakup, Bundy dropped out of college and travelled east. Rule states that, around this time, Bundy decided to visit his birthplace, Burlington, Vermont. There he visited the local records clerk and finally uncovered the truth about his parentage.[15]
After his discovery, Bundy became a more focused and dominant person. Back home in Washington by 1968..."
Note that here we see that he traveled to Vermont and returned after finding his ancestry during 1968.
I am sending this message to avoid an edit war. I will be reverting (hopefully without screwing up the WML).
If I do break it, please do not change the placement of that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.233.233 (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Who are you? You know about reverting and edit wars already? Amazing. Use the sandbox for test edits, please... Doc9871 (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for condescending, I am regular contributor for several years I don't like to log in, it a pain in the ass. This was not a test edit though; did you read what I wrote? 22:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.233.233 (talk)
- Thank you for admitting you're not a "newbie". Logging in is a "pain in the ass"? It's not so hard, really. How many years have you been a regular contributor here? Just curious - you weren't vandalizing... Doc9871 (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Reply
If you want to have fun in your little social club, fine, but don't threaten those of us that actually edit the encyclopedia.—Chowbok ☠ 15:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." "If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." I'm not threatening you, Chowbok: you are meeting the definition to a "T". Why? Doc9871 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- We are not a social club and we do edit. I think you should take to heart what you were told by User:Fences and windows. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- You and Jack never seem to disagree - in fact you have followed precisely in his recent wake with "uncanny" precision when he's having problems with WHL; much like a "meat puppet", no? I'm looking closely into your history, and it's fascinating. Do you follow both Jack and WHL, just Jack when he's after WHL, or just WHL? Or is there something else going on? Doc9871 (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't been working on the same articles with Jack for years; in fact, despite that we're both long-timers here I don't think we ever talked until maybe a month ago. Besides, we did disagree, on the deletion of WHL's attack page. I see WHL/Pinkadelica/Rossrs/LaVidaLoca chats going back to at least 2008. That said, go ahead and call me a meat-puppet if you want, I don't really care.—Chowbok ☠ 20:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- You haven't worked on any article that Jack has for years? What the heck are you talking about - is this a joke? Some are hours apart on the same day [1][2][3]. Do you mean you used to edit the same articles years ago (but never met), stopped, and just recently have started editing the same articles? Clarify what you mean, please... Doc9871 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry that I was unclear. You are attempting to compare my editing relationship with Jack to WHL with Rossrs, et. al. I was pointing out that it is an inapt comparison in that while WHL has IMO acted in collusion with the same small group of editors for at least a couple years, Jack and I only just started having edits in common. Does that make more sense?—Chowbok ☠ 21:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- It does make more sense, thanks. The common thing about the edits is WHL, as seen from your May 4 post here. And Jack[4], "Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia." Is that what I've been doing to you or Chowbok? Hardly. This week for the RfC? Can't wait... Doc9871 (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry that I was unclear. You are attempting to compare my editing relationship with Jack to WHL with Rossrs, et. al. I was pointing out that it is an inapt comparison in that while WHL has IMO acted in collusion with the same small group of editors for at least a couple years, Jack and I only just started having edits in common. Does that make more sense?—Chowbok ☠ 21:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- You haven't worked on any article that Jack has for years? What the heck are you talking about - is this a joke? Some are hours apart on the same day [1][2][3]. Do you mean you used to edit the same articles years ago (but never met), stopped, and just recently have started editing the same articles? Clarify what you mean, please... Doc9871 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't been working on the same articles with Jack for years; in fact, despite that we're both long-timers here I don't think we ever talked until maybe a month ago. Besides, we did disagree, on the deletion of WHL's attack page. I see WHL/Pinkadelica/Rossrs/LaVidaLoca chats going back to at least 2008. That said, go ahead and call me a meat-puppet if you want, I don't really care.—Chowbok ☠ 20:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- You and Jack never seem to disagree - in fact you have followed precisely in his recent wake with "uncanny" precision when he's having problems with WHL; much like a "meat puppet", no? I'm looking closely into your history, and it's fascinating. Do you follow both Jack and WHL, just Jack when he's after WHL, or just WHL? Or is there something else going on? Doc9871 (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
So nice, we said it twice
What I thought was so amusing about it was that not just you, but also another editor did the same thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- "I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to f@$kin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how?" ;P Doc9871 (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? Oh yeah? OK." Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, and also §. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? Oh yeah? OK." Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
you are not welcome on my talk page
bzzt. don't assume whom I was quoting. Jack Merridew 10:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- My bad. Couldn't have possibli been that episode. I mean, possibly. That's the first thing that's ever gone wrong... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppet issue
Hi, I just got a note that my IP (71.171.109.42) is accused of being an apparently banned user, Skagit-something or other. In any case, I can assure you am me and not that person, and that I've got a long history here (though I disappeared for a while) that can be verified. --み使い Mitsukai 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- If I was in error, please feel free to remove the tag from your Userpage - the Talkpage entry could be kept as a record if you chose to do so. I really only corrected the original tag - wasn't my call to begin with, but, again, please remove the tag from your Userpage at your leisure. Happy editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- (I removed another rude edit from her that she posted here.) I hope it's ok. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
FYI
Hi, check out Wildhartlivie's talk page. She is now retired so I guess everything is done. The RFC just became useless as far as I'm concerned. They wanted her gone, and now she is. I wonder who the next victim is going to be. Also look at my history of my talk page for a lovely, not, comment from Skagit. She of course used a roamng IP to attack again. I deleted it which is why you need to look in history. I am real sick of all of this to be honest and I am done with it. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Doc, SkagitRiverQueen left a rude message so I deleted it. You can find it in your history if you are interested. I marked the IP too. Also, I'm trying to see if she can be stopped so I posted here to ask. If you or any of your lurkers care to comment feel free. I hope it was ok to delete from your talk page. Take care, --CrohnieGalTalk 21:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Personal?
Yep Doc! But I a in SUPERB company! ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The banned and "indeffed" SRQ is undoubtedly still at it[5]. These "redhead" comments are slightly disturbing - "ginger-bashing" at the very best? ;P I would like to create the category "Confirmed Sockpuppets of SkagitRiverQueen", but I don't know exactly which IP's that can be proved through behavior (since the list keeps growing). I think 99% of them, but that's just me. Sabra2 and UrbanCowboy12 for sure - can I add the appropriate templates to the obvious IP's? It's all academic at this point, but it should be noted, as the socking has not stopped... Doc9871 (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:OUTING? Not in the slightest! Try this on for size: "Before I do anything drastically redheaded ;-)" -> User:JoyDiamond, (from your own talk page DummyDoc9871) on 2 June 2010 at 21:32. LOL! Yep! Idiots, complete idiots! <|8~P