User talk:JW1805
Talk Page Archives |
---|
Archive 1 |
Archive 2 |
Stark
No, I didn't notice, thanks for showing me. He impersonated me on my own talk page as well, right after your post. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Apalachicola Photos
Nice pictures; I corrected the gamma on a couple of them:
If you haven't seen...
You may want to see this. It is dealing with User:Larnue the dormouse and his remarks on various people's talk pages. You may want to review his contributions. Seems he's been after you since his creation. Just thought you'd like to know. See ya. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Confirmed. I've blocked; would you mind adding him to the various relevant pages? Jayjg (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Larnue the dormouse
Note to other editors: Larnue the dormouse (talk · contribs) has been confirmed by Jayjg (who has CheckUser power) as a sockpuppet of banned user Zephram Stark (talk · contribs). If you aren't familar with this long-term troll, please see Category:Wikipedia:Suspected_sockpuppets_of_Zephram_Stark, Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Zephram_Stark, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark for details. Since he is banned, I am in the process of reverting his posts and edits to various talk pages. --JW1805 (Talk) 05:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I had/have no idea who might be right or wrong on the issue he raised and replied in good faith. Hopefully, like the doormouse, we can all go back to sleep again. David91 04:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the alleged and confirmed banned sockpuppet's comments from my talk page. Please do not revert any comments from my talk page in the future. Instead, please place a note in a notice box such as this one to let me know about the situation. --James S. 05:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC) |
- Would you mind letting me know the details of your dispute with Larnue the dormouse? I'm having trouble determining any semantic difference in his or her recent revert of your edit. This looks quite odd to me, and I would like to know more about the background of your dispute with the banned user in question, and why he or she would go to such trouble to make such a small revert to your edit. Thank you in advance. --James S. 05:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your explanation. I am reviewing Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Zephram Stark, and Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Zephram Stark. --James S. 05:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads-up about Larnue; I had no idea. If you read my reply to him, it was fairly non-committal, and I tried to be nice (I thought he was just a random new user); hope it didn't create more problems than it solved! Batmanand | Talk 10:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do not delete others' contributions to my talk page. —Pengo 13:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hi JW, I would rather keep it on my talk page, until archived, it seems a fairly crude and feeble ploy, it would rather blacken the perpetrator's name than your own. Rich Farmbrough 17:19 9 April 2006 (UTC). P.S. I've added a note to the effect that it was posted on about 28 admin's talk pages. RF
- There are several comments about me lying around on Talk pages that, in other contexts, might be considered defamatory but I have not unilaterally removed them. Indeed, I am amused to leave them there since I am here anonymously and no-one is any the wiser. I make it very clear to you that I most strongly object to you deleting material from my talk page. However, as a matter of courtesy, I have archived the page. David91 17:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Not Proving a Point
To quote the article you pointed me to: "If someone lists one of your favourite articles on AfD and calls it silly, and you believe that there are hundreds of sillier legitimate articles... do state your case on AfD in favour of the article, pointing out that it is no more silly than many other articles, and listing one or two examples. don't list hundreds of non-deletable articles on AfD in one day in order to try to save it. "
I neither regard Republic of Texas or Republic of Hawaii as 'silly'. I regard them as serious as Republic of New Hampshire. You are refusing to acknowledge that you are holding RofNH to a double standard, which you appeared to need pointing out.Citizenposse 01:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"Plagiarism" on Seal of New Hampshire
In response to your posing at Talk:Seal of New Hampshire#plagiarism, I made the following request:
- Could you please point out some of the "plagiarized" passages or edit them accordingly? Assawyer 23:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Witchunts and Suppression
Are there wikipedian principles against witch hunts and suppression of history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenposse (talk • contribs) 01:03, April 12, 2006 (UTC)
reverting ZS
I don't see the point of reverting any positive edit by ZS, even though he's banned. We're building an encyclopedia. If an edit of his improves it, your reversion will only subtract from Wikipedia's quality (ergo: don't do it) 24.224.153.40 02:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Please assume good faith. Perhaps it is outside of your area of expertise, so just to let you know that on the Bring radical page, it is entirely appropriate that real links to Real number. This is within the guideline found at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links_to_disambiguation_pages. Thanks. RupertMillard 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I know quite a bit about stars and this was actually a good edit that you reverted. --Pole star 04:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking at Lester Darling's special contributions, they look to me like all good faith edits. Can I change it back if I know it's right? --Pole star 04:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)