| Revision as of 12:35, 6 May 2007 editWobble (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,640 edits →For ex← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:27, 16 May 2007 edit undoKarenAE (talk | contribs)33 edits →For ex: Cant stomach this editor... | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| ==Sock puppetry accusation== | ==Sock puppetry accusation== | ||
| It would very likely be in your best interests to visit the ] which has been filed against you. Your editing patterns bear a significant degree of similarity to a banned editor, and you may wish to explain this, as well as what led you so directly to the ] article. However, even if you're not, I would hope it would serve to caution you that your editing habits are similar to an editor who ended up banned. I will also make the offer, before I more thoroughly look into it, that if you are indeed Lukas and come clean on it now, while this account will be blocked, I will not reset or lengthen your ban (though I can't speak for anyone but myself.) ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | It would very likely be in your best interests to visit the ] which has been filed against you. Your editing patterns bear a significant degree of similarity to a banned editor, and you may wish to explain this, as well as what led you so directly to the ] article. However, even if you're not, I would hope it would serve to caution you that your editing habits are similar to an editor who ended up banned. I will also make the offer, before I more thoroughly look into it, that if you are indeed Lukas and come clean on it now, while this account will be blocked, I will not reset or lengthen your ban (though I can't speak for anyone but myself.) ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==For ex== | |||
| ''For ex, (Yes, not for example) I'm guessing millions use "for ex" instead of "for example".'' | |||
| :What nonsense. The correct abreviation is '''e.g.''' not '''for ex'''. It is significant that this error is repeateddly used by both you and Lukas, presumably Lukas19 made it because he was not a native speaker of English, and thye errors you make in your grammar are always identical to Lukas19's. Your attempt to say that "for ex" is common usage is totally incorrect. It is an unusual and incorrect initialisation, see ]. I fail to see how a content dispute at the White people article has any relevance to you being a sockpuppet or not of Lukas19. But this is also a Lukas19ite thing to do, accuse another editor of bad faith in order to change the subject. Your editing and arguing style are identical to Lukas19's, your oppinions are identical to Lukas19's, your love of burocracy (how you love RfC's etc.) is identical to Lukas19's. I don't understand why this case was closed as "inconclusive" when every respondent decided that you are indeed Lukas19. With these sorts of criteria I wonder that anyone is ever found to be a sockpuppet. What do we need, it is impossible to get '''more''' than 100% of the people who comment to agree, and in this case 100% of the editors who commented did actually think you are a sock of Lukas19. I suppose you are just lucky, you seem to have avoided your ban. ] 12:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:27, 16 May 2007
Re: Inactive Meditator?
I've mentioned it on our mailing list. Someone will look into it and probably take the case over from there. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. ^demon 14:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sock puppetry accusation
It would very likely be in your best interests to visit the sock puppetry case which has been filed against you. Your editing patterns bear a significant degree of similarity to a banned editor, and you may wish to explain this, as well as what led you so directly to the white people article. However, even if you're not, I would hope it would serve to caution you that your editing habits are similar to an editor who ended up banned. I will also make the offer, before I more thoroughly look into it, that if you are indeed Lukas and come clean on it now, while this account will be blocked, I will not reset or lengthen your ban (though I can't speak for anyone but myself.) Seraphimblade 19:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)