Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:43, 29 October 2009

DYK for Downing Street mortar attack

On May 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Downing Street mortar attack, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Drop me a line

After this incident, I am done with Misplaced Pages. That such a discussion took place, without my having had an opportunity to respond, and then such unilateral action was taken, 1 hour after the discussion began, is ridiculous. I'll be seeing you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I decided to speak my mind on the ANI, though I regard this all as fait accompli. I still had to say my piece. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher: The elephant in the room

I don't know what barnstar applies to your magnificent critique but if you can find one, wear it with pride with my applause. It is a 'sample answer' on how to expose inaccurate citations. --Red King (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a big of a stickler for citing sources accurately, especially when it comes to controversial articles. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

All set

FOllowed up on your email. Blame the delay in followup in squiring a co-worker friend of mine from Australia through all the shops this "weekend". SirFozzie (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have bizarre visions of Crocodile Dundee type situations! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha.. no.. but there was a lot of shopping for shoes and blue jeans... :P SirFozzie (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

signature

What does your signature mean? I couldn't work it out. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Link, audio file linked right at the top. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sussexman

Re this edit. I guess by the large number of similar edits you're attempting to consolidate various sockpuppet templates, however the new one isn't accurate. Sussexman was indefinitely blocked for a legal threat, and 18 months later it transpired that he was operating various sockpuppets to evade the block. That, and the revelation that Sussexman was himself a sockpuppet of an editor evading an ArbCom ban, resulted in a community ban for the editor concerned. Not sure which template is best under the circumstances? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you're saying yes he is inef blocked and he's a sockpuppet/puppetmaster but that it's incorrect to say that he was indef blocked for being a puppetmaster or puppet? - hmm; I really wasn't looking at the reasons for the blocks, seems like that's going to be an unusual thing that the account is blocked for reasons separate from socking and is part of a large enough sock ring that it's worth explaining. I'll bring up the issue of blocked socks who are blocked for independent reasons at WT:SPI, maybe we'll change the tag language for the new tag. Sounds like this one though should have a sockpuppet tag rather than a puppeteer tag based on what you say. But I think this one deserves a narrative of the history not just a simple template. Maybe you could post relevant history to page with links/diffs if it's important to track that sort of detail for this one. Alternatively, if the narrative is somewhere else we could link to it as evidence.--Doug. 19:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a narrative linked to on Sussexman's talk page, the community ban discussion which took place at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive127#Placing community ban on User:David Lauder et al. I can't remember exactly why I tagged Sussexman as the puppetmaster instead of Robert I (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), although it was probably because the connection to Robert I was based on the duck test whereas Sussexman was linked to the other accounts by checkuser. I'm not sure if this case is that unique though to be honest. I'm sure there's plenty of cases where editors have been indef blocked for various reasons then gone on to evade that block using plenty of socks that need some way of being tracked? I'm equally sure there's going to be cases where a community ban has resulted by persistent evasion of indef blocks using sockpuppetry. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

your revert

If you object to the edit please come to the talkpage and discuss your reasons. Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)