This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alexandria (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 6 July 2007 (→[]: question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:52, 6 July 2007 by Alexandria (talk | contribs) (→[]: question)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Feddhicks
| request links: main • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 19:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC) |
- Feddhicks (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Bobblehead (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Dereks1x (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: Prove my innocence
This checkuser is to prove my innocence. Bobblehead accused me of being a sock of this Derek guy ] because I thought that a controversial real estate dealing about Barack Obama should be a one sentence, neutral comment in the article instead of putting it in very small fine print hidden in the footnotes. (Some others wanted a full blown description as shown in archive 8).
Because Bobblehead doesn't agree with me, he accused me of being a sock. Maybe he is a sock of that person (there's a name for that but I forgot it...scarecrow sock, strawhat sock, etc???) Feddhicks 19:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Delisted enwp checkuser policy states that we can't use checkuser to prove one's innocence. -- lucasbfr 15:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Question, do you think we could have it be a code F since Dereks1x is banned, or is that not possible? Kwsn 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
