Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 17:04, 13 February 2010 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2010/January.). 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.

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)