User talk:Ssbohio/Heesham

Winters edits

I'm noticing a trend of related editors, which may be sockpuppets, meatpuppets, both, or neither. They are:

User

Ruled out

IP

Ruled out

72.40.132.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Discussion

I don't know whether this is significant or not, but I think it's interesting. --Ssbohio 19:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely interesting. How about SurfingMaui540? (P.S.: Civil servant myself, too!)--Proofreader J-Man 19:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's always jwinters820 (talk · contribs), who appears to be the same editor as the others. I've already seen SurfingMaui make a comment on the WWII talk page, and then have LTwinters change it to his name, though this was a little while ago. Parsecboy 19:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DKWinters and JWinters820 are relatives of mine. If you look at their edits, I told them about some of the discussions going on, and as they felt they had the same opinion, they left a note saying that. --LtWinters 01:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of what Parsecboy is saying is that SurfingMaui has made a comment, then LtWinters has come along and changed the attribution of that comment to himself, not that LtWinters made an additional similar comment. It's looked upon skeptically when one user changes another user's comments. In this case, it supports the thesis that one person (or a group working as one) is using multiple accounts, which is referred to as sockpuppetry. --Ssbohio 01:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

64.205.199.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 72.90.165.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 72.90.174.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 72.90.231.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are not mine, DKWinters and JWinters820 are cousins of mine, jwinters I have no idea who he is, he's been around since 2004 and I've only been here since 2007, and the IP adress at the top is mine, sometimes I forget to login.--LtWinters 01:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll consider all that as I'm deciding how to proceed. The usernames & IP addresses listed do seem to edit each others comments and userspace, for example, and appear to be related in some way. I haven't decided what the right course of action is, as of yet, so I'm monitoring the situation. If you can be more forthcoming with an explanation, it'd help me out. --Ssbohio 01:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the incident to which I was referring; SurfingMaui replied to a discussion LtWinters and I were having, and then 3 minutes later, LtWinters changed the signature to his own. That's obvious sockpuppetry. If Jwinters820 and DKWinters are indeed your cousins, and you more or less directed them to a specific page, knowing full well they would support you, that is meatpuppetry, which is treated the same as sockpuppetry. From what I can tell, Jwinters is a distinct editor from the rest, and can be safely ruled out. Because LtWinters does work towards improving Wikipedia, I don't think he should be blocked, but the socks/meats should be indef blocked, and Jwinters should be left to go on his merry, unrelated way. That's just my opinion. Parsecboy 13:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My two cousins and I were brought up by parents who had the same views, and now we have the same views. We are wiki editors, and you are saying now that they do not deserve a voice? Parsec, I see how you think that I am going to tell them to agree with me, but I am honestly not. I know it's hard for you to believe me, but well that's about all I can say. --LtWinters 16:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page blanking

{helpme} Can someone answer for me and/or point me to policy concerning a user blanking his or her user talk page? Is there policy against this, or is it an acceptable practice? Should such blanking be reverted, presuming there is acceptable content that's been blanked? I did some searches and couldn't find policy on point. --Ssbohio 04:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear policy, so it is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. This was recently discussed at WP:VP/P#User_Talk_Page.--04:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Immaculata High

Yea, just forget it. Delete it now if you want, I think it would go better under the Immaculata Website. Thanks though for your suggestion. --LtWinters 19:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heesham and Heesham, Arizona

In looking at Heesham, I noticed that on the originator's page, you had properly moved Heesham to Heesham, Arizona. Unfortunately, the originator decided to undo this move and now the redirects are backwards. However, hopefully this will soon be moot, as I've proposed Heesham for deletion since it appears to be a hoax page. I could find no reference to it on Google. --Proofreader J-Man 06:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Heesham

You say I must stop interupting by making pages such as Heesham. Well, I am not being disruptive, because I have not made the page again. I am simply saying on the talk page I feel we should do it again in the future. Did I make it again, against a community consensus (which I was part of if you look at the articles for deletion page)? No, I am simply giving my support to someone to do this in the future. And although I deeply appreciate your concern over whether I leave an edit summary, I must say quite frankly, get a life and stop spying on me, and there is no rule saying that I have to leave an edit summary, and if there is, well, take a look at the ww2 page because half the other people don't leave summaries as well, so you can tell them off too heesham. --LtWinters 01:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is that you created Talk:Heesham when there was no corresponding article. A talk page that has no corresponding article is subject to deletion on sight, according to the criteria for speedy deletion. My message to you only mentioned Talk:Heesham, not any other page. --Ssbohio 02:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ww2

Unfortunantly Shobio, you have not read anything on the ww2 article and have no idea what you are talking about. There was a concensus about no changing the title to the Second World War earlier, and the editor did not care and changed it against the concensus. I will say you are right that I should not have left that edit summary, but obviously its too late to change that now. Just to let you know, I am using a different username now instead of LtWinters, I am only keeping this one generally to edit the WWII article since it would be confusing if I were to change my name. Hope Ohio is going good for you...--LtWinters 23:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio is good... How's NJ(?) treating you? I have a cousin in Bloomfield. Anyway, I do understand that World War II is the consensus name for the article; I think I even pointed out my agreement in the message I left u. I was only wanting to caution u about how u were referring to the guy who kept moving the article. A casual observer would see your comments and immediately form a negative opinion of what u were doing, not because reverting the move was wrong, but because of the civility issue.

Overall, I'm impressed with your editing, especially on the military history articles, and I'd guess that on 99% of issues like this one, we'd agree. Articles should be named according to their most common English name, for example. Anyway, feel free to contact me if I can ever be of assistance. --Ssbohio 00:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles nest

Da sham is not cloeseable yet. FOr the airport stuff, gotta go now, I'll come back later.Rlevse 16:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made it under name Eagles Nest Airport, New Jersey. I didn't make the dab page because the other eagles nest airport articles seem to not exist. I also wikilinked in the two places you mentioned.Rlevse 21:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]