Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by R-41 (talk | contribs) at 18:26, 12 February 2010 (→I am certain now that Caremerger is a sockpuppet of Immoral Moralist, have evidence to prove it: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Communist genocide

Hi, and thanks for your advice regarding my 1RR sanction. I will think this over and then decide whether to appeal and what to write.

By the way, I made an interesting observation regarding the AfD of Mass killings under communist regimes.

• the EEMLers had canvassed the vote twice, see 20090804-0758 by Digwuren and two days later by Martintg 20090806-0526
• the EEMLers voted for only the same position
• unusually many of the the EEMLers voted
• the EEMLers sabotaged a 2/3 majority

• support: triplestop, shawn, drmies, mintrick, offliner, russavia, abductive, lokiit, rankiri, ezhiki, ironholds, muzemike, passwordusername, the four deuces, good ol'factory, jeff g., irbisgreif, igny, nick-de, calton, rd232, multixfer, soap, dimawik, the red hat of pat ferrick, voluntary slave, soman, lk, csloat

• oppose: piotrus, dgg, martintg, jacurek, hillock65, mandsford, poeticbent, vecrumba, termer, olenglish, sander säde, vision thing, shadowjams, radek, amateureditor, olaf stephanos, fOo, shyamsunder, pectore, smallbones, biophys, merovingian

• support: 29 (of which: 0 EEMLer)
• oppose: 22 (of which: 8 EEMLer)
• percentage of support: 56.86 %

• support (excluding EEMLer): 29
• oppose (excluding EEMLer): 14
• percentage of support: 67.44 %

• 2/3 majority required for pass = 66.6 %

I think this should be pointed out to the arbs and the admins considering the AE threads. Offliner (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

RS/N & Transaction Publishers

If you can find it stated that Transaction Publishers are as bad as I feel them to be, in appropriate reliable sources, then it would be great if you could note the sources criticising Transaction for being a conservative / conspiracy theorist / white reactionist press whose standards of fact checking and faithfulness are those of your average CIA/Ford Foundation establishment that would be great. If it doesn't exist, then their texts will have to be case-by-case with the usual appropriate presumptions. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Socks

I supported the request - and also added the notice to his page --Snowded 06:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I made a comment on the "sock puppet" page about "Can I". Is "BobIsBob2" in the same category, or different?" Rick Norwood (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Hugo Chávez

Look, your edit warring on Hugo Chávez is not acceptable. I did block you, but undid it when I saw that I had neglected to account for you starting to discuss on the talk page of the article. An edit like this, after SandyGeorgia had explicitly listed the reason for adding each one in her edit summary, is disruptive. Please stop. NW (Talk) 20:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Will you please refactor the section of your edit here that consists of a personal attack? Also, please note, e.g., that I support the article name change and also believe that anthropogenic global warming is occuring.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've answered your response on my talkpage (though would have preferred this remain here).--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 18:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am certain now that Caremerger is a sockpuppet of Immoral Moralist, have evidence to prove it

Hi The Four Deuces, I see that you are investigating Caremerger for sockpuppetry. An important point to note is that Caremerger began editing in February of this year, which is the same time that Immoral Moralist was found for sockpuppetry. Secondly Caremerger's first edits were on the Fascism page, and I believe they were argumentative, like that of a user who has already been debating with other users and is not fresh to the debate. Just examine the contributions page. Also Caremerger like Immoral Moralist and the associated sockpuppets of that user all are very interested in U.S. politics, particularly classical liberal politics like Adam Smith, John Locke, the U.S. Constitution, etc. I am certain that Caremerger is a sockpuppet of Immoral Moralist. If you like I will present such evidence to back up your claim, or you can use me as a reference to back up the claim. Mention that Caremerger and Immoral Moralist have identical interests in debating about fascism and U.S. politics and history involving classical liberal figures and ideas. I think that is enough to prove the case. Tell me what you think of this.--R-41 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)