User:HPJoker/Archive 2

Socby19 comments

You still don't get that you did notify me for some reason. I still would like an answer. I do want to talk to you, but under your IP you just remove it anyway, as well as removing my argument of why it shouldn't be there on the article's talk page - something you CAN get blocked for. A good Wikipedian would not do that. Your IP history is filled with blatant vandalism, which sometimes removes it if it doesn't work the way you'd like to. And if I am mistaken that it, in fact, isn't your IP, I take back that statement. But, it can be proved that it is your IP, if it in fact is. That 'bugs' section got reinstated three months ago and I stopped patrolling it. "Checked it lately? Look at it." That b.s., man. There was no reason to do that other than to starting an edit war you know you'll win. You're annoyed that it's now November and I, again, am trying to remove it - your fault, sir. By advising me of looking at the article, you knew that I would attempt to take it down. This time, I will try to have it removed. Socby19 (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's the internet, you may not live in a hotel, but you can be anyone. Hotels still have IPs that could be traced. But the fact that when I try to make an 'argument' in which you are involved, an IP removes my statement? Kinda unlikely to be somebody else. You'd 'be happy to talk'? This is at least the third time I'm asking for an answer of why you notified me three months later. You have been avoiding me by removing or not addressing my points of argument. Socby19 (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Youtube-fair point, but it should still be limited to gameplay issues with a source. The big deal is why you notified me after three months of not caring that it was still there. "That 'bugs' section got reinstated three months ago and I stopped patrolling it. "Checked it lately? Look at it." That b.s., man. There was no reason to do that other than to starting an edit war you know you'll win. You're annoyed that it's now November and I, again, am trying to remove it - your fault, sir." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socby19 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I already posted why you should know. Its on your page. --HPJoker (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as a user I have the right to know what's going on for (almost) every page that is on Wikipedia. But if I had interest, I would check for myself on my own decision. Telling me about it after I haven't bothered to look at it after three months - (f)lame. Socby19 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I do in fact, myself have evidence that you are the IP. And no, you have not told me why you posted "Checked it lately? Look at it." Socby19 (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"WHY THE HECK ARE YOU CONSTANTLY LOOKING AT MY FRIENDS AND MY TALK PAGE TO SEE IF I'VE POSTED ANYTHING. I'M DAMN TIRED OF THIS! STOP FOLLOWING ME! LET ME ENJOY MY TIME WHILE THIS IS GOING ON! YOU SEEM SO DETERMINED TO UPSET ME SOMEHOW"; You have just, in one way or another, admitted to being the IP. You seemed determined to upset me somehow by notifying me of the bugs section after I have showed no interest in patrolling it for three months. No reason to do that. If I was truly interested, I would have done it the entire time. I will let you enjoy your time, just ignore my comments like you have done by removing them. That is vandalism and you can be blocked. Enjoy your time by doing the right thing on Wikipedia - editing constructively and not removing other's peoples statements on talk pages. If you choose to do the things you've done, you deserve to suffer the consequences and/or reactions. If you were in a hotel, the IP contribs list only shows only a few weeks worth of editing, so it is likely you. "LET ME ENJOY MY TIME WHILE THIS IS GOING ON!" I could say the same thing, don't advise me of something I had no interest in. "YOU SEEM SO DETERMINED TO UPSET ME SOMEHOW" Yes, same again. My telling me about something you have confidence in that you'll win.Socby19 (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how that gives away that I did it. Anyone would get tired of getting bugged like this. I did delete your comments and I stated why. I've learned my lesson on that part. I'm a noob to wikipedia and don't know a lot of those rules. The only positive thing about this is that I've learned a lot of those things. --HPJoker (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There, you just gave it away again. Some of the comments that you said you removed, were removed by an IP. Especially this one Socby19 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are two different cases. Just cause I said I did one doesn't mean I did all of them. --HPJoker (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Anyone would get tired of getting bugged like this." Yes, I could say the same, yet again. I was getting bugged back in August that people kept adding the section back when it shouldn't have (and still be) there. But I just walked away (so to speak) from it. No, but you just had to tell me three months after I left, when you were clearly for, and not against, the section. Wasn't it clear that I had no interest in that article anymore? I could care less if someone replaced the page with the President's biography, or some animal article. Would I care if it got deleted? Not at all. Well, if you had left me alone in the first place, when I clearly didn't care, you wouldn't certainly be 'so upset' at all, nor being accused of a sockpuppet. Is it fair to call this revenge? Kinda. But it's your fault anyway. Socby19 (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/HPJoker for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Socby19 (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)