User talk:LTMem

Taking a well deserved wikibreak for a while. Will be back anon LTMem (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your ANI post

Reconsolidation has a six week editing history. So when you say he is a "long standing editor" it implies you are aware he has edited before under other names? So you probably have the 'linking evidence'. I note your use of my real name which is also a characteristic of editors who come here from the meat puppet sites ----Snowded ^TALK 08:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I note your starting on wikipedia just a couple of months after your other ID headleydown got banned[1]. You got one admin on your side to ban Reconsolidation. Its just a matter of time though. Your whole sorry chapter will get exposed in the end.LTMem (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you avoided answering the question and have directly referenced an off wiki recruitment site for meat puppets which rather confirms the point. The headleydown accusation has been throughly investigated and rejected, I'll happily give you the link if you want. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Headleydown association sticks like glue. No matter what you do "Snowded", you simply cannot seem to be able to rinse it off. It leaves a very distinctive giveaway smell.LTMem (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Determined to avoid the question I see. OK lets be very clear. If you continue to make that accusation without evidence then its time for tolerance of your personal attacks to end and for a report to be made. The article is under Arbcom restriction and that gives admins considerable scope to impose restrictions on editors who fail to make a constructive contribution. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can read your NLP "case" as much as anyone else here. Its just your smear tactic to keep sensible editors away from the article. There is nothing wrong with staying anonymous. LTMem (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NLP

Your participation in the RfC strikes me as unhelpful bordering the disruptive. Your are opposing a choice between two wordings because you prefer a third one that you know noone else will ever agree to. That is a waste of everyone's time - and in the end it means that the curtrent text will remain in place. I think you should consider changing your attitude towards something more collaborative or you are likely to end up with editing restrictions in the NLP area which is under discretionary sanctions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think any of those versions are realistic at all. My reply seems to be seconded by other editors [2]. LTMem (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]