User talk:CambridgeBayWeather

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I have two requests for people coming here:

  • If you intend to revert personal attacks could you please use the {{subst:unsigned|user name|date}} template instead.
  • If you are here to complain about something I deleted could you please tell me the name of the article that you are talking about. If you do I will respond but if you don't I will ignore you.

Bobov dynasty[edit]

Hi Cambridge!

I would like to bring to your attention that misleading info has been put in the Bobov wiki by people who have agenda's. I tried few times to correct it but was deleted by others. At this point you have closed the editing options while the misleading, agenda promote info. is still out there. If you need more elaboration on the happenings please get back to me.

O. Bobov

Philippine Airport Vandal[edit]

Looks like Kuala Lumpur International Airport has become constantly targeted by the Philippine Airport Vandal. HkCaGu (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! HkCaGu (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Recreational Drug Use, admin only[edit]

Hi. The only problem with the article was a couple of days age when WarriorLut decided to make a change to the lead. I explained why I didn't agree, but instead of responding to my talk page message, explaining his opinion, he left a message at the top of the page describing all my recent edits as "vandalism". He then, still without responding to my message, started repeatedly changing the entire article back to how it was 3 weeks ago. I reverted these changes. He is no longer doing this. So, I wonder if the protection is necessary. Ps. he states here [1] that he thought I was a 'bot'. (I don't know of any bots that explain their actions on talk pages, and chase editors around trying to engage in discussion, but anyway). Now he presumably accepts that I am a human, I don't expect any problems. His user account is odd, it was opened in 2006, but his first edit was a couple of days age, to recreational drug use, and he has not edited anywhere else, (except the admin's notice board).

Also, I get the sense I may have done something wrong. If so, could you explain what, please? I know there's some kind of 3-revert rule. But what was I supposed to do about a brand-new editor who changes the entire article to an old version, repeatedly? Am I supposed to leave it in any state he desires for 24 hours? That would only reward his behaviour. In taking a firm stance, I demonstrated to him that vandalism is not preferable to discussion. Is there a different course of action I could have taken? Perhaps I should have informed an administrator. (I don't yet know how/where to do this, though).

If you think the temporary page protection is a sound idea, no problem. I just thought I should explain what the article situation is, and ask if I did the wrong thing vis-a-vis reverting changes which the editor absolutely refuses to explain or discuss. If you could tell me what I am supposed to do in such situations, after having written on the article talk page and the editors page, that would be good to know in future. Thanks.

Ps. The editor still may have a chip on his shoulder judging from his latest criticism of me on the talk page. But I honestly think it should be fine, since he appears to care what administrators think (see above). I'm not sure the protection is necessary, it seems like an over-reaction. The article is in a sound state, but I was thinking about expanding it further. Thanks zzz (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

PPS. I later removed his "vandalism" message. It was a clear case of personal abuse, which he moved to the top of the page to draw more attention. He had persistently refused to even acknowledge my existence, let alone respond to my messages. (Maybe I wasn't supposed to do that. I don't know. It seemed the right thing to do.) I think the editor just decided he hates my guts, but he seems to have calmed down.zzz (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

But maybe its best to leave it protected, to be on the safe side, since it's in a sound state. The history section does still need expanding, tho. I just wanted to explain that I don't think I acted badly, really. zzz (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

more advice[edit]

Sorry, but your the first active administrator I thought of. I was happily editing "Terminator 2: Judgment Day", to make an (enforced!) change from "drug abuse", when an editor who has previously accused me, with no evidence, but an air of absolute certainty, of being a Sockpuppet, made an empty edit in order to accuse me of habitually making "deceptive" edit summaries. This, and the previous groundless accusation, are the worst sort of personal abuse, far worse than using any of the words that I am sorely tempted to (but I don't want to get banned - which this editor clearly does want). Is there any course of action I can take to prevent this poisonous, malicious slander from continuing? It is now permanently plastered across the new article's edit history for everyone's entertainment and "information". The editor previously told me straight up that they intended to follow me around, and now they have managed successfully to slander me where it can't be removed. This is no doubt some kind of personal triumph for them. I made some really good improvements on the article, but now I daresay I'd better leave it alone, which really annoys me. zzz (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Ps. I have only ever (once) been accused of putting "minor" in an edit summary when I shouldn't have. However, the specific edit on that occasion was never pointed out to me, and the accusation had no merit in my opinion. And this editor was not involved in any case (but spying on me, I expect). I only mention all this, in order to sidetrack myself from thoughts of global annihilation and other untoward events. I'm sure it's just a placebo, and there's nothing to be done. But it keeps me amused, anyway. Thanks. (not sarcastically) zzz (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone unfamiliar with my ability to easily spot WP:Sockpuppets, as recently as this case, can check my user page. I never stated that I am going to follow Signedzzz around. There is no need to follow Signedzzz around when he is popping up at Wikipedia articles that I have WP:Watchlisted, including the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article. I even have the CambridgeBayWeather user page WP:Watchlisted, along with various other WP:Administrators' user pages. As shown in Signedzzz's edit history, I asked Signedzzz whether or not he is new to editing Wikipedia, just like I've done with a few WP:Sockpuppets. I noted that I don't believe Signedzzz's claim that he is relatively new to editing Wikipedia; he may not be well-versed in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, but a lot of long-term Wikipedia editors, especially sporadic long-term Wikipedia editors, are not. Signedzzz responded with a WP:Personal attack. I left Signedzzz alone, like I stated that I would, until Signedzzz popped up at the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article today and made an edit with an inaccurate edit summary. Either Signedzzz did not know that "motorbike" means "motorcycle" or Signedzzz overlooked the material, or Signedzzz intentionally issued a misleading edit summary. The editor that I suspect Signedzzz of being would also issue misleading edit summaries. And one editor so far, Elizium23, has warned Signedzzz about edit summaries that may be deceptive. Whether it's Elizium23, Jab843, Alan Liefting, or some other editor warning Signedzzz, or the recent WP:Edit warring situation you've warned Signedzzz about, Signedzzz has consistently engaged in WP:Disruptive editing. His talk page history documents part of it. Am I going to try to put a stop to such problematic editing when I see it? Often, yes, I will. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, I would prefer that we keep this discussion centralized, per WP:TALKCENT. No need to post a reply at my talk page. Again, I have this talk page WP:Watchlisted. Fragmented discussion is not beneficial, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What is it that there is for you to discuss, exactly? As can be seen from my talk page history, when you made your first unprovoked accusation, you stated: "You won't last long under your Signedzzz account with that behavior. And then I won't have to worry about the account any longer." If this isn't a promise to "follow me around", I don't know what is, and your protestation to the contrary is ludicrously disingenuous. I can't even be bothered to argue with any of the rest of the rubbish you state as if it was facts. Sticking personal abuse on an edit summary is bang out of order. End of story. I can't believe you dare to come here and actually try and justify putting libellous abuse about me on an edit summary. You talk like it's something you consider a sensible course of action. And the fact you think you are good at spotting sock puppets doesn't mean you are, it just means you feel the need to compensate for something. And don't try to pretend this admin, and any other admins I care to think of, are your friend. You accused me of something you know to be false, on an edit summary - in order to slander me most effectively. If I have ever been accused of any more than (once) clicking "minor" on an (unidentified) edit summary, then prove it. (Not that that would justify the deliberate use of slander in an undeletable public forum). I've written two good, high-profile articles from scratch in the last 2 months, and essential work on other important articles. What have you done, apart from wind me up and try to get me banned? (Let me guess: "revert vandalism"...) Other editors can revert vandalism perfectly well without starting smear campaigns for their crappy amusement against reliable editors. I still can't believe you are seriously arguing that Wikipedia rules, and administrators, would back you up in your campaign to hound me out of WP! zzz (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

And why do you want to get me banned. Oh yes, because I "am" a sockpuppet, because you are always right. Even when you are lying in an edit summary to slander someone - they deserved it, if you say so, so that's fine, then!zzz (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The whole sockpuppet concept, while sinister and libellous, is fairly ludicrous, at least in my case. Why would I want to hide my identity? My work speaks for itself, none of it has ever been disparaged. What, exactly would I need to be hiding? The mind boggles. I can't really follow your logic at all. You need to accept that your not nearly as smart as you pretend, basically. zzz (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like a guarantee that this editor stays away from me. He is trying to get me banned, by using clearly un-Wikipedian tactics of slander, inspired by some twisted sense of their own infallibility. This is not helpful to Wikipedia (or me). Thanks. zzz (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Why should my blood pressure have to go thrpough all this. Its bulls***. Again. And no-one can accuse me of disruptive editing. On the Magdalene Asylum page, people were against inclusion of the mass grave incident that was reported worldwide, so I met a lot of resistance. I was never, not once, accused of being disruptive. I was, once accused of being abrasive, which was fair, and I have since then never been accused of anything. So that was just more bullcrap, just then, accusing me of "disruptive editing". Nothing even close. Why do I have to sit here defending myself? I think I've made my point. I want a guarantee, since an apology would be just as disingenuous as the accusations. Thanks. zzz (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Abuse is one thing, but hounding me and sticking libel where it can'y be removed is frankly ridiculous. I hope this is making sense. zzz (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • The libel in question is A LIE
  • The other earlier allegation IS A LIE
  • No one has ever accused me of DISRUPTIVE EDITING, until just now, above.

Have I missed any other FABRICATED & MALICIOUS accusations? zzz (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not lie in any edit summaries about you. And the wording "And then I won't have to worry about the account any longer." means exactly what I stated that it means. Once I suspect a Wikipedia editor of WP:Sockpuppetry, that Wikipedia editor will remain a suspect in my mind until cleared by evidence. I knew that I would continue to see you around, since you have an interest in editing some of the types of articles that I have an interest in editing, including medical articles. How do you think I first came across you? Because you popped up at one of the articles I have WP:Watchlisted -- the Spree killer article; and you made a dubious edit there as well. That edit also is not WP:Minor. Your "personal abuse" and "libellous" arguments are silly. I can already tell that you are the type of editor who would make a WP:Legal threat, which is not allowed. As for me thinking that I am good at spotting WP:Sockpuppets? No, I and many others at this site know that I am. I have various cases under my belt regarding that topic; and in this case, I explained to a WP:Sockpuppet just how easy it is to spot WP:Sockpuppets. I'm not trying to pretend that CambridgeBayWeather is my friend. I simply stated that CambridgeBayWeather's user page is on my WP:Watchlist. Am I acquaintances with some WP:Administrators? Yes. Only on Wikipedia for the vast majority of them. And a good number of them watch my user page.
WP:Ban is different from WP:Block. And as for your editing, I agree to generally disagree on that. To me, your edit history speaks for itself...just like you think it speaks for itself regarding your positive contributions to the site. As for whether or not you are relatively new: Like I stated, I likely don't have enough evidence to label you a WP:Sockpuppet, so I have not labeled you that on Wikipedia. Even if you are not the editor I suspect you of being, I'm convinced that you are not fairly new to editing Wikipedia. But that is beside the point. Even a WP:Sockpuppet can return and edit productively. If you edit productively from here on out, I won't have much of an issue with you. Will we continue to see each other on Wikipedia? Yes, because, again, you are interested in some of the types of articles that I'm interested in. My user page, for example, shows that I am interested in editing fiction articles and medical articles (including those relating to psychology), among other things. Seeing me at the same articles you are at likely will not be a case of me having followed you. I am well aware of WP:Hounding. I reiterate that, after our interaction in August, I left you alone until you popped up at the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article. And as for what have I done on Wikipedia... The WP:Barnstars on my user page, and some accompanying comments there, speak for themselves. I don't have much more to state to you, until "I have to," especially given how easily you resort to WP:Personal attacks. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and, as made clear on my user page, I'm not a he. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You do lie. You stated that I habitually make "deceptive" edit summaries. THIS IS A LIE, as I have repeatedly explained. What part do you not understand? If you stand by the lie that you advertised at Terminator 2, then provide an example of a "deceptive" edit summary. The fact you havent already done so speaks volumes - I'm absolutely sure you would be keeping a list of such mistakes. But you make slanderous accusations on edit summaries that you have no proof of. This is the problem, here.
  • "And then I won't have to worry about the account any longer" means exactly what it's intended to imply, in fact, of course. It's really not the point at issue here, but we both know exactly what it means. Why not be honest, about one little thing?
  • The edit at Spree killer is not remotely dubious - it puts the article's lead in line with the dictionary definition, which was desirable to me because I was wikilinking to it from Boko Haram. I always check the articles I link to for accuracy. Hence, this is another example of you making a libellous & fictitous allegation to attack me with. A perfectly clear-cut example, in fact.
  • "Libellous" doesn't mean I am going to take you to court. That is an idiotic suggestion. But then again, you are just talking complete garbage at this point.
  • I'm not interested in your arguments for how useful you are at spotting sockpuppets. I am a good example of just how sadly deluded you are about this.
  • You left me alone, until you noticed that my article had been protected, when you took your opportunity to wind me up and get me to get myself banned, by provoking me as best you can into making a personal attack in return. It's appalling.
  • I want action taken against this editor, please. I accept I broke the revert rule, so my page is protected. This editor sees fit to break rules to try & get me banned, and I want it stopped, please, CBWeather

zzz (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You stated, "You left me alone, until you noticed that my article had been protected, when you took your opportunity to wind me up and get me to get myself banned, by provoking me as best you can into making a personal attack in return. It's appalling." Oh goodness. So wrong, as is so much else of what you've stated in this section. Your user page is on my WP:Watchlist; I noted that to you when we interacted in August. And you don't have a Wikipedia article; see WP:Own. Time to ignore you now. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

CBWeather, I want action taken against this editor, please. I know he/she will continue to attack me anyway, but at least the principle of not allowing that sort of thing should be upheld, or else editors like this will get the idea they can do whatever they want with impunity. Since there are rules, Can something please be done to enforce them? I wouldn't care, but the editor has made it clear that they regret nothing, and intend to continue their unprovoked harassment, which does indeed wind me up. And, I don't see why rules should be strictly applied against me, but not against people who seem to think they "own" Wikipedia, somehow, apparently. zzz (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of slandering someone in an edit summary. And even if I was tempted to, which I actually haven't been, I wouldn't do it because this editor (or similar, if there are any) would immediately use it to get me banned. It is appalling, as I said, and I am not "so wrong" in the slightest. Apologies for the length of this - I wasn't expecting the editor to continue their lies and personal attacks here. zzz (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Or, don't bother. It's not really that important, I guess. And I'm sure the editor knows how to use sockpuppets, may be doing so already anyway, in fact. I'll do my best to stay detached if (ie. when) it happens again. I shouldn't let it get to me. Oh, well. zzz (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I could have been doing something useful, but I had to defend myself- as if anyone cares. I wouldnt have bothered only its on the edit history, and then the editor who put it there saw fit to continue attacking me, which is pretty disgusting. What a massive waste of time. zzz (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Why does anyone bother with Wikipedia? Makes no sense, really. zzz (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Signedzzz: and @Flyer22:. You both need to stop going on at each other. Neither one of you has provided any differences to show the problems with the other. If an editor, like Flyer22, has a particular article on their watchlist and sees an edit that they find curious then it is quite likely they will check other edits by the same editor. I do it all the time and sometimes there is nothing to it but other times there is. At the moment nobody is going to get blocked or banned. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 10:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that I have not provided differences to show problems with Signedzzz. For one, Signedzzz has a WP:Personal attacks issue. For another, any very experienced Wikipedia editor who closely examines some of his edits should see that he has some odd interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and these interpretations are detrimental to some of the articles he's edited. For another, he has far too many similarities to a WP:Sockpuppet named on my user page in the section about WP:Sockpuppets; he very recently, some time after his above rants, removed one of the similarities from his user page. And there was also this suspicious edit by an IP (which I noted as suspicious) soon after his above rants. I am not "going at him"; I am expressing a concern regarding his editing Wikipedia, especially any careless editing he engages in, whether it is at the Spree killer article, the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article, or some other article. He is "going at me," and I don't care for it, which is why I left him to rant. If he wants to rant, then so be it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
How the ---- is that not "going at me" zzz (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

So, is it fine for her to continue making up reasons that prove me to be a liar and cheat? She can continue telling people what a fraud I am, in edit summaries or wherever else, and its not abuse, it's "evidence", yes? zzz (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I change my user page, and that's "evidence" of me being a fraud. Because she says it is. An IP makes an edit she doesn't like, and that's more "evidence" of my lying, fraudulent, behaviour. That's fine for her to say, am I right? And she can say in the edit summary on Terminator 2 that I "usually" make lying edit summaries. When no one has ever accused me of that. But because she spies on me, she knows that once I was "accused" of clicking minor when it wasn't (never specified). She can call me whatever she wants, in any forum she wants. Right, ok. And she doesn't need to provide evidence, beacause anything I do, she is free to describe as evidence. We've only got my word it isn't. Thats weird. I don't get it, please explain. If I find something possibly wrong with an edit summary, and I do what she did, and say "deceptive edit summary ... as usual" when there has been no such pattern whatsoever, it's fine, even tho I'm calling her a liar in an undeletable public forum? That's what started this whole thing here. So please answer that. Thanks zzz (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's be very clear. I am a trusted editor, and I've done nothing wrong. (See that - I started defending myself again). I came here because of a personal attack in an edit summary. A long argument followed about how much of a fraud I am, and how dishonest. Does that make sense? I just want to know , does she have special powers to abuse those she doesnt like? Because it really seems like it. Terminator II: Judgement Day. "Deceptive... as usual". No evidence of pattern of deceptiveness, just this one small temporary oversight in missing one para in a blog, means she can plaster her personal abuse on edit summaries and everywhere else? It's not evidence of dishonhesty. End of story. If shes allowed to state that Im dishonest, wherever she wants, I obviously dont understand wikipedias policies on personal attacks, and so forth. Ive always been careful not to attack anyone. Clearly I've been doing things wrong.zzz (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And now more evidence of my fraudulence - I changed my user page! Well, that clinches it. Removed a picture, I did. Is this all just a hilarious joke that I'm not in on? Seriously?zzz (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

But, your saying it is fine for editors to call each other "deceptive" wherever/whenever they like, if I understand you correctly. This is a surprise to me. How is it worse to say "sod off" rather than "you are a habitual liar, and a fraud, and I am an expert in detecting such things, so people should WATCH OUT FOR THIS LIAR AND FRAUD"? That's absolutely fine, yes? But If I say "go f--- yourself" that would be against the 'rules'? "Your a liar and a fraud" is constructive. Ok, I'll have to try using the "Wiki" approved insult myself in future, sometime. And I'll just direct people to this discussion if they dont like it. zzz (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then. Just so long as I now undesrstanf the rules, now, correctly. Thanks. zzz (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear tho, can I say "Your a complete f------ retard?" or your a "c---"? or does it have to be "your a deceitful editor and a sockpuppet"? = "Your a liar and a fraud". Since these last 2 are fine, I'll certainly use them if anyone annoys me in future. Might as well, since the rules say its absolutely fine, eh? Must be helpful to WP, somehow. Who am I to say - Im just a liar and a fraud, anway! what wd I know. zzz (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It's funny, cos I don't see anyone else being accused of anything around the website. Just me. But I'll remember to use the "your just a liar and a fraud" argument to prove any ppoint I want to make, in future. It seems a lot easier than actually using powers of logic. zzz (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And it's fine, as long as I claim to have incontrovertible evidence. Right. Is that an official, or an unwritten rule? Fascinating, really. zzz (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And, one can say "anyone who looks at the other articles by this editor would see how he/she has edited to the detriment of WP" or any variation. Right. But you cant actually say "this person is a persistent vandal". You have to switch the words up a tiny bit. No problem, I can probably manage that. I'm learning a lot here, right now. Thanks. I really dont think I like WP any more, but whatever.zzz (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

She can think what she like. I came here to fins out if its fine for her to stick her opinions of me in edit summaries, stated as fact. And the answers yes, which surprises me. Ok, then. I'll have to try it if I decide I hate someones guts. Must feel satisfying to know youve made someone look like a fraud - "no smoke without fire", after all. zzz (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

What other lies and abuse are ok to put in edit summaries? Is it just "deceptive edit summary... as usual", as on Terminator 2, (and variants, of course), or what other lies can you state while attacking editors in edit summaries, please? Then I'll know not to complain when this editor uses them, which will save everyones time. Thankszzz (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And, now, I seem to be repeating myself. Just cant believe what's going on, that's all.zzz (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, her last comment says that Im a sockpuppet again. Not Wiki-abuse. She "provides evidence". Not actual evidence - doesn't need to be. Anyone reading it will just assume it is pretty damning evidence, because they dont understand these little wiki-rules like she does. Well, I'm learning a lot about how to abuse the system to make personal attacks. Its been a massive incredibly unpleasant waste of time, but at least I've learnt something. If I ever choose to act like a complete certifiable sociopath, which could happen quite easily no doubt, I just will, now I know these simple ways of doing it. And using edit summaries is a good tip. Personally, I dont edit to abuse people. But I might decide I want to in the future, I suppose - who knows? zzz (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • "Anyone who looks at the other articles this editor has done will see ..." etc.
  • "... has a personal attacks issue"
  • "... is a sockpuppet. Just yesterday, this [any page will do] happened, proving it"
  • Those are just a few from her last comment. I'll have to use this discussion as a reference for recommended Wiki-abuse. zzz (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Abusive use of multiple accounts. That is a very serious charge. I demand a full investigation. I should be dealt with (or shown to be totally innocent - but no one whatsoever would think that. No smoke etc.) No, I should be dealt with "if" Im using multiple accounts. Why am I not being dealt with? I only edit a handful of pages. It must be very simple to show some of the edits made by these abusive accounts. It should be extremely simple. Why on earth am I allowed to continue? I must be causing enormous damage! It needs to be stopped. It is a major priority, since I have written two high profile articles in the last couple of months already. I need to be stopped, urgently, I would have thought.zzz (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • "...has a history of disruptive editing". Thats a good one to annoy people with, assuming its not true. zzz (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are for winning arguments basically, yes? Ive only had a couple of them. And no one ever backed me up. But that's just me saying that. Ive only edited for 2-3 months, so it should be very obvious that I'm lying. Does WP not actually care about sockpuppets? I thought it did. Another misconception. zzz (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess this kind of "discussion" is why hardly anyone wants to edit pre-existing pages. Which is why they are all in such a poor state. Because of people like her. Now I get it. I always wondered about that. zzz (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If I continue to use WP (which I may do for a bit, just not very much any more), I'll obviously remember, that personal attacks (listed above) in edit summaries or wherever else, are fine, and you just have to ignore them. The WP "rules" are an in-joke. What a n idiot I am for not realising that. How embarrassing. Why does anyone bother editing? Oh, yes... they don'tzzz (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • "...has some odd interpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and these interpretations are detrimental to articles" another, clever-sounding one from her last comment. zzz (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "...has far too many similarities to a WP:Sockpuppet named on my user page in the section about WP:Sockpuppets" - requires a section on user page entitled "Sockpuppets". Note use of "WP:", thought by some to make you look important. zzz (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "This user makes deceptive edit summaries" - what started this. Place in an edit summary for full effect. Excellent for general annoyance, and also provocation (and failing that, at least you've "warned" other users, which si what makes it so much fun). zzz (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

So anyone can announce that anyone is a sockpuppet, is detrimental to articles, makes deceptive edit summaries, has a history of diruptive editing, has a personal attacks issue, etc. These and more can all be used anywhere, at any time, and no evidence is required, as long as no 'bleep' words are used. That is the actual, unwritten, WP:PERSONAL ATTACKS rule. Well, I've written it now, so that's an improvement. zzz (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, some times I get things confused. If this is the case, please let me know. Otherwise I just might try some of this Wiki-abusing myself just for the hell of it. Just need to phrase the abuse like your reading from a legal document, and it's all good. What a joke. zzz (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In a nutshell, she made a personal attack in an edit summary. I thought that was going too far. If that is actually fine, then so be it. And if I ever get criticised for doing so, I (or indeed any other editor) can reference this discussion to demonstrate that its actually no problem whatsoever. No justification is necessary, any attack on the character of the editor is good, so long as legalese is used rather than 'bleep' words. And it is also fine to accuse any one, regardless of evidence, of being a sockpuppet. I am collecting these little unwritten rules on my user page for reference. Thank you. zzz (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It turns out, I'm the one at fault, for being a suspected sockpuppet. that was a productive discussion, thenzzz (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz there usually is no reason to be so defensive and the long multi-edited posts are really difficult to read. Try to be more concise. The only possible thing that I saw that could be considered an attack by User:Flyer22 was in the edit summary. And I see that she has apologised for that. Asking if you had edited before is not an attack but just a question. There is no need to blow it out of proportion. You have accused Flyer22 of hounding you but at this moment with all the talk page posts you look as if you are harassing her. If you keep that sort of thing up you will end up being blocked. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 16:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree I shouldn't have got so upset, and I apologise unreservedly for doing that on your page. She only apologised for the edit summary after I tried to remove a paragraph from her user page that is specifying me as a sock puppet [2] (every statement, from Boko Haram on, is specifically about me, without mentioning my name). A couple of admins have had some amusement pretending it's not about me, which surprises me, so I have followed another admin's advice and taken my complaint to ANI. Sorry again for going mental all over your talk page. I don't see what her apology has to do with it, though, since she had ample opportunity to apologise while she was commenting here. My talk page posts are all very polite, I thought (after the first one). I dont understand why you say I could be blocked for them. Did you just assume they were rude? This whole sockpuppet thing is such a huge waste of time. The sock cannot spell or use grammar. There was no reason to think it was me. She now admits it wasn't me. But she has kept the attack piece spelling out that it is me anyway. zzz (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection of articles[edit]

How did you protect I (film) article, bro? Can u tell me? :D Ssven2 (talk)

Can you please protect Kaththi article bro, atleast for 2 months because the vandalism is too much to handle. :D. Thx Ssven2 (talk)

List of Boeing 787 orders and deliveries[edit]

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)