| Revision as of 21:32, 9 January 2008 editJack1956 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers110,524 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:56, 11 January 2008 edit undo68.47.175.159 (talk) →SockpuppetNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| * I have no personal bad feeling towards you...my attitude is entirely neutral. I have not assumed bad faith on your part; I just have concerns about your use of anonymous accounts. It seems I am not alone in this. I myself have edited after having been logged out. As soon as I've realised I've logged back in. I certainly haven't carried on editing for ''days'' without logging in. That is the nature of my concern. ] (]) 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | * I have no personal bad feeling towards you...my attitude is entirely neutral. I have not assumed bad faith on your part; I just have concerns about your use of anonymous accounts. It seems I am not alone in this. I myself have edited after having been logged out. As soon as I've realised I've logged back in. I certainly haven't carried on editing for ''days'' without logging in. That is the nature of my concern. ] (]) 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :The problem is that you are '''assuming''' that someone not signed in is doing so for purposes of doing '''bad''' things or is in itself bad. There is no rule saying people have to sign in -- quite the contrary, in fact, and a good thing too when there is no way to guarantee you'll be signed on. When I just stop by and make edits after Google searches on whatever I am looking for brings up an article that I fix, I have no way of knowing I am not signed in. And when you attack me for not signing in and raise a big fuss, I will not sign in just to further prove to you that you have no clue. Your attitude is clearly not neutral, you are raising a fuss about something for no reason whatsoever, and continue to do so even after you are educated to the contrary. At this point it is just harassment. Stop bugging me about rules that only exist in your head. ] (]) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:56, 11 January 2008
sorry. —αἰτίας •discussion• 03:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thomas Horrocks Openshaw
- Hi, I wrote this article. It is not based on the Bart's online article that I have listed in the reference section; my article here and the Bart's article share a common source, - we both used Openshaw's obituary in The Lancet from January 1930. I would have to be a special kind of stupid to list the article that I had plagiarised in my references! I should have put The Lancet obit in as a reflist but I didn't know how to do that when I wrote Openshaw. Jack1956 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Responded on article talk page. 68.47.175.159 (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article is largely written from scratch. When you are writing about the title of appointments and responsibilities these are going to remain the same across sources. My article and the Barts Hospital article rely on Openshaw's obituary. I think we agree he is an important name in Ripperology. Perhaps you could have a go at the article to show me how its done. Jack1956 (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
I suspect that this anonymous account is a sockpuppet. See here for my reasoning . I am sorry if I am wrong. Jack1956 (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please take the time to learn what a sockpuppet even is before filing an accusation. 68.47.175.159 (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am quite aware of what a sockpuppet is. Jack1956 (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Your actions show otherwise. If that were true you wouldn't have made the accusation in the first place. Being unwilling to admit your error only further leads people to the conclusion that you may have had ulterior motives for bringing it up. 68.47.175.159 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Leads you to suspect it you mean. If the Opensahw article is wrong it will be deleted...that's the way it goes and that's fine. But at least be up front in your dealings with fellow editors. Jack1956 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Proclaiming that i haven't been is a violation of WP:AGF -- I already explained to you that the browser signed me out and what sockpuppets are. Continuing to insist that I was sockpuppeting or misleading anyone is simply a personal attack at this point to try to cover up for your bad behavior. 68.47.175.159 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have no personal bad feeling towards you...my attitude is entirely neutral. I have not assumed bad faith on your part; I just have concerns about your use of anonymous accounts. It seems I am not alone in this. I myself have edited after having been logged out. As soon as I've realised I've logged back in. I certainly haven't carried on editing for days without logging in. That is the nature of my concern. Jack1956 (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that you are assuming that someone not signed in is doing so for purposes of doing bad things or is in itself bad. There is no rule saying people have to sign in -- quite the contrary, in fact, and a good thing too when there is no way to guarantee you'll be signed on. When I just stop by and make edits after Google searches on whatever I am looking for brings up an article that I fix, I have no way of knowing I am not signed in. And when you attack me for not signing in and raise a big fuss, I will not sign in just to further prove to you that you have no clue. Your attitude is clearly not neutral, you are raising a fuss about something for no reason whatsoever, and continue to do so even after you are educated to the contrary. At this point it is just harassment. Stop bugging me about rules that only exist in your head. 68.47.175.159 (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)