Jump to content

User talk:76.114.86.121

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by GeneralBotability (talk | contribs) at 22:07, 21 October 2021 (GeneralBotability task 2: remove old IPSock templates). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Sockpuppet

[edit]

I suspect that this anonymous account is a sockpuppet. See here for my reasoning [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack1956 (talkcontribs) 20:54, 3 February 2008

And you still don't know what a sockuppet is. 76.114.86.121 (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said that last time and I was proved correct...you were blocked from editing then, as this IP has been now. Jack1956 (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Kbthompson (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your edit summary. See Talk:Jack the Ripper/Archive 4 for a discussion of the matter, amongst other places. The two issues are distinct. If you wish to make a case for the merger of the two articles, please do so on the relevant talk pages. Kbthompson (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KB, please stop using pointless warning templates when you know you are wrong. I pointed you to prior discussion in my edit removing it. I could put a big warning on your talk page about creating improper fork files, but trading pointless warning templates doesn't solve anything. 76.114.86.121 (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in view of your comment [2] that you will never deny editing anonymously if you forgot to log on, etc, are you prepared to state that you are also Dreamguy? Jack1956 (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it from your silence that the answer is that you are not prepared to admit it unless it is proven beforehand by a RfCU? Jack1956 (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]