User talk:Lingeron

Note: confirmed with Checkuser. ++Lar: t/c 10:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

=Welcome to my page=



Welcome! Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
 * Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
 * Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome!

-- Will Mak  050389  05:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am always glad to welcome the newcomers, hope you have a fun time and if you have any questions just message me. -- Will Mak  050389  14:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My block
I was blocked because I tried to message a bunch of people with the same message because I was trying to spread the word about something, but it was considered spamming. The block was rescinded after a few hours, though. I am still new at this, so I did not know what I was doing.

Anyway, if you are interested you could join WikiProject Christianity. I see that you believe in the Bible because of your user page, that is a great quote by the way. Hope you are having a Wiki-licious day! Message me again sometime, I love getting new messages. -- Will Mak  050389  03:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to call me WillMak, Will, whatever. Any questions about the WikiProject are probably summed up on the page. Invite others you think will be interested in this (do this very sparingly, reason I was blocked), expand the articles on that page, and resolve any disputes that may arise from christianity-related articles. Hope you are having a good day, I have to go to sleep now, hope to talk again. -- Will Mak  050389  05:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Will
The only reason I attacked Will on his user page was because I am against Christianity and everything God. I would never practice a religion that's based on fear of Hell which by the way doesn't exist. There are no such things as sins and being gay isn't bad I actually kind of like it. There also shouldn't be a wiki project Christianity. Nothing against you or Will, I just say my opinions very loudly. Thefreakshow 12:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
I appreciate your support against thefreakshow, I have notified an administrator, and I hope he will be reprimanded. I'm glad I have a friend here that supports me. -- Will Mak  050389  16:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"I love Jesus"
Hi, you recently joined WikiProject Christianity with the comment "I love Jesus". The comment makes me wonder if you wouldn't prefer to have joined WikiProject Jesus instead? Clinkophonist 17:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies
I am so sorry about any anti god comments! It was my older brother Wilsoner who cracked my user password and decided to have some fun by attacking members of wikiproject christianity(he was molested by a priest at age 5). I hope you can forgive him, but what do you expect from a Moscow prisoner who's serving time until 2011(getting out just in time to see me graduate from high school!) Again, I am very sorry and I having nothing against God. By the way, I am a girl, but your friend WillMak050389 seems to think otherwise. Please notify him of my proper gender. Thank you. Thefreakshow 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a story
The above writings are completely true. I swear they are. Some guy made bad drug deal with him, and then, BAM!, he's in prison. Also, this message will be signed by my second account user name JimmyCow, even though I am Thefreakshow. I tried to log in as Thefreakshow, this morning and it said incorrect password. Do you know how to fix this??? Leave response on JimmyCow's talk page please. JimmyCow 15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind the above writing about needing help, i figured it out. Thefreakshow 15:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Problem
Yeah, me too. I still can't figure out why my password didn't work. It was probably Wilsoner messing around with my computer using his laptop in Russia or Victoria, Dallas, Giacomo, Crispin, Kain, or Ricky (my family) who let viruses crawl into ouir hard-drives. Who Knows! Thefreakshow 23:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Password
Wilsoner doesn't know my password, but he can hack almost any website. He was studying to become a computer programmer before he got mixed up in drugs. He stole some special de-coder software from the college he was at so has all these like illegal virus micro-chips. Thefreakshow 23:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Micro Chip
He did steal the stuff, but I don't what it's called exactly. Micro chip, hard ware, same diff. He just knows a lot about computers. How would I get blocked by saying stuff about viruses to "certain regular editors." I don't have the viruses, Wilsoner does and I can't stop him from using them. What am I gonna do, fly all the way to Russia and smash every peice of computer equipment he has? It may seem like I'm lying, but a just have a very wierd life. What do you expect, I live with 9 other kids and 7 of them are guys. Thefreakshow 12:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Lying
Look, I don't lie and I think it's rude of you to say that I make up stuff up off the top of my head. I don't know the difference between hard ware and soft ware. I never said I was a computer wiz. My name is Ari "J.J." Jacard and I didn't make up any personal information at all. I'm not going to be blocked as an editor because my life isn't what most people call normal. By the way, I have 2 questions. Do you speak French? and What the heck is Lingeron? Thefreakshow 19:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Country
I'm in the United States in Long Island, New York. Thefreakshow 20:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

French
Salut! Cava bien et toi? I speak French, but not fluently. I'm taking it as a foreign language until 11th grade, so I know 2 years worth of French so far. C'est magnifique! Au revoir mon ami. Thefreakshow 12:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If I combined my 2 best friends names, the results would be "Doughailey" Thefreakshow 12:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What Should I Do?
I was at my school helping one of my old teachers clean their classroom and went into the public restroom in the school. Someone wrote "Keith and Doug are gay fags" on the bathroom wall. Doug is my best friend and I would feel really bad not telling him that he and his boyfriend were called a nasty name. I feel kind of guilty for all the torture they endure at school because I'm the one that set them up for their first date. Should I tell them or not? I don't want to wreck their relationship. Thefreakshow 16:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Keith and Doug
Thanks for your help, I won't tell them then. I don't think they would have cared anyway. They knew what they were getting into. Thefreakshow 16:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Hey Shannon, how have you been doing. Things here are pretty cool. I just earned my first BS today. I'm glad to see we have all got thefreakshow incident figured out. Just wanted to reply and say hi and thanks for vandalizing my sandbox. -- Will Mak  050389  05:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll try to help. What's the problem?-- Will Mak  050389  05:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK.. I'll try to explain as best I can, and I am using nowiki in order to show you without it actually showing up on this page.

First you will need to go to "my preferences" on the first tab is a section called signature. You post what you want your signature to be here. Make sure to check the box labeled "Raw signature (no auto link; don't use templates or external links in this)" for different colors: TEXT THAT YOU WISH TO BE COLORED

color names are limited, if you know hex code this works too.

for different pages: wikimarkup works here For example:  Shannon would display "Shannon" but it would link to your talk page.

Shannon would display "Shannon" but would link to your page.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. I am going to sleep in about 15 min. though. -- Will Mak  050389  05:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll got to sleep, but if you need me to explain the above better, I probably can. I could get you colors in your sig and have more links to your pages. If you want to specifically tell me how you want it to look, I can create that for you, too. -- Will Mak  050389  05:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All righty then, I will go to sleep then. Good luck! Oh and if you can't find a specific color this page has a hex code chart at the bottom of the page. Instead of putting a color name in those quotes you can just put in the six-digit code shown on this page. Good night again. -- Will Mak  050389  06:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi!
Oh, feel free to steal (basically) anything from my page as most of it is not my creation anyway. I found the RfA summary template on someone else's page too. Also, you mentioned you were good at HTML and I found a page that lists the HTML elements that are permitted on wikipedia This is the link. Hope this helps and I hope your having a good day! -- Will Mak  050389  03:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, I saw them. thank you very much for them, I appreciate the fact that others notice that I'm doing something around here. I moved them around and signed them for you, hope you don't mind. Anyway, I hope you have a good day and hope to talk to you more often. -- Will Mak  050389  20:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
I don't see any logical reason why a compliment should upset me, but thank you for making one. â Natha  n  ( talk ) / 23:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Nickname
Umm, ok what did you want it to look like? It should show up when you do three or four tildes. What did you need help with? -- Will Mak  050389  01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just one question first, I might need a third page of yours to link to (like your playbox or contributions, etc.) what would you want it to be? -- Will Mak  050389  03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sha nnon duck talk

that would look like this: Sha  nnon duck talk   Not sure why the nnon looks smaller though.
 * Glad you got it. Hope you have a good night! -- Will Mak  050389  04:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your photographs
Hi Lingeron! Thanks, so much, that's really nice of you. --Fir0002 07:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ
Hi, you can join the wikiproject by adding your name to the list of participants - WikiProject Jesus.

Current activity in the wikiproject will be discussed on the talk page - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jesus. Nothing seems to be being discussed at the moment, but that may mean people are just busy doing Jesus stuff, and nothing needs discussing. Clinkophonist 09:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism
No problem. Also, I'm glad you joined in and I hope that you will not let them to drive you away. -- Vision Thing -- 15:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you sometimes feel stressed take a day off. Article will be there when you come back and some other editor might pick up where you stopped. Also, editing & discussing with a cool head is much more productive. What's the problem with liberalism? -- Vision Thing -- 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's my email. -- Vision Thing -- 17:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: the attacks on Hogeye and all the rest
Yeah, things do get a big ugly in the trenches of the talk pages and edit histories, in fact it is extremely discouraging. Esp. the concept that truth can be found 'democratically' where the dissenters in an article think they can contrive some artificial consensus of what the 'truth' is without considering factuality or relevance simply on ideological grounds; or, even worse, on grounds of personal attacks against the 'credability' of an editor without regard to the relevance of their contributions.

Anyways, I am curious about which edit of mine you are specifically appreciative of; as I am always seeking feedback on my contributions, it is nice to know which ones are productive.

Thanks, Two-Bit Sprite 13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigs & Archiving
Hiya! I left a reply to your question on signatures and see that you've gotten it working, I'm quite glad! Your page isn't super-long yet, but I have a feeling at the rate you're accumulating comments you may need to do this soon: How to archive a talk page. :D  ~Kylu ( u | t )  15:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply posted on my talkpage, I'm one of those 'pedians who gets confused when a convo spans between multiple pages, sorry I forgot to explain!  ~Kylu ( u | t )  15:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism
Hi, Shannon. I'd appreciate it if you didn't attack some of the users who are editing anarchism. The fact that some of us disagree with you does not mean that we're evil, or a cabal of communists out to change history. I think that the vast majority of us have good faith. I think that you'll have an easier time contributing to the article if you operate under that assumption and treat those with whom you disagree with a bit more respect. I've found that to be the case in my experience. Just some helpful advice -- take it or leave it. :) --AaronS 00:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, again. Thanks for responding. What I am referring to is edits like this, this, this, and this. I really can't think of any editors who call themselves communists, so I'm not sure why you're accusing us of injecting communist propaganda into the article. I know that you're acting in good faith, but so are we. Pretty much all of us just care about the article being accurate. If you want to know why it might not agree with how you think it should be, I suggest reading up a bit on how Wikipedia articles are written (WP:V and WP:OR and WP:Verifiability, specifically). Anarchism is a controversial article, so we need to make sure that it adheres to those standards. We're trying to avoid biased POVs.
 * As for you and Vision Thing, I don't think that I've ever attacked either of you. If I have, show me, and I'd be happy to apologize. RJII and Hogeye are different matters altogether, and perhaps you're not aware of the context of the situation. Both are banned for editing Wikipedia for POV-pushing, incivility, disruption, and more. RJII himself stated that his goal was to inject his own POV into Wikipedia and to wage "psychological warfare" on the editors here. Wouldn't you question the good faith (and mental health) of someone like that? --AaronS 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey
I know we haven't talked a lot lately, but I felt you deserved this for always being here to talk to. Without you, my time here would have been much more boring and now I have someone to talk to. Thanks and I hope you have a good day! -- Will Mak  050389  06:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear you are cheered up, but is there something you want to talk about your feeling down? I hope you're ok and I hope to talk to you more. -- Will Mak  050389  14:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey!
Hi! I'm doing ok except I just got over a really bad stomach virus. I was puking a lot. I'm fine now though. I just got back from the aquarium with my mom's bestfriend's sons Frank and Timmy ages 7 and 5. They are so annoying and they never stop eating! We went to TGI Fridays and they ate triple what me, Giac, and Dallas ate put together! Hope you're doing ok too. By the way, have you ever read the Diary of Anne Frank? I'm reading it over the summer and have to write a 6 page essay on it for my English 9x class in 8th grade. Thefreakshow 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning
Do not censor critical comments. --AaronS 23:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Your opposition to my RfA
Hello! I have put some comments under your opinion on my RfA (I've put them there, not here, because they're of interest to other participants) and have tried to address your concerns. I hope you manage to reconsider it positively before the poll ends. Thank you and happy editing! Misza 13 T C 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still having troubles understanding your critique. I believe it's just a misunderstanding caused by my far-from-perfect English. I have commented on the page again. Misza 13 T C 16:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I posted a quick question that I had about the RFA under your oppose statement. Please let me know what you think. -- Where 17:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Lingeron, with all due respect, I am baffled by your oppose vote. By opposing to an RfA, you are saying that the user doesn't deserve the admin tools. You would prefer this user to not have the tools because everyone else does? Also, what does "rogue admins" have to do with anything? Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is it a political system. As I mentioned on the page, humor adds spice to a workplace, thus increasing output by having a string of upbeat, on-task workers/editors. Administrators are supposed to be neutral, so their political/social alignment will have absolutely nothing to do with janitorial work (or, in many ways, helping new users out in a professional manner). Your reasons sound more like a "neutral" vote than an "oppose" vote. I recommend you change your vote to neutral to avoid potential fallout in the future (not from me, I'm just trying to line this entire issue up here). &mdash; Deckill e r 18:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Are the voters in this rfa "everyone"?
 * 2) As Wikipedia is not a political system, why is the rouge admin question even asked at rfas?
 * 3) I know what Wikipedia is.
 * 4) Potential fallout? What kind of threat or warning is that?
 * Wasn't a threat at all, I was just trying to give some advice from issues I've seen in the past. Nothing personal at all; my message was just to try and get to the bottom of what's going on. :-) Again, I apologize if it seemed very frank. For some clarification: by everyone, I meant everyone who had participated in the RfA. The Rogue Admin question, in my opinion, is often asked to see how admins will respond to some humor (I could be wrong; it's my interpretation). However, now that the entire RfA has passed, I think it's best that we agree to disagree and continue working on our passion - editing articles. Happy editing ^_^ &mdash; Deckill e r 02:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My vote stays the same Sha  nnon duck talk  21:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi
I think the book is good too. Please leave messages on my talk page so I realize they are there so I can respond. Thanks! Thefreakshow 23:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Bye!
Today is my last day on wikipedia until July 30th. I'm off to Southern Shores. I was wondering if you could read any messages I get while on vacation and respond to them by telling the user I'm not back yet? Thanks! Thefreakshow 12:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

messages
I'll put a vacation notice on my talk page too. Thefreakshow 18:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Luck
My friend JT Tean and I are entering a break dancing competition in North Carolina with our team The Joseph Crew. Wish us luck.
 * Good luck! Sha  nnon duck talk  19:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for the luck, I think we're going to need a lot of it. Joss, Mickey, and I are the only ones who can pull off suicides without breaking our backs. Mickey perfected the suicide bomb actually. It's when you jump really high then bend and grab your feet in mid-air, land on your back(not directly on your spine) then bounce back up and do it again. Mickey can do a chain of 3 before he has to grab the ice packs! None of us are professionally trained so it will be a hard battle to win. My section of the routine consists of front and back suicides, a one handed pike, and balancing my full body weight(100 lbs.)on one elbow! Gotta go, my grandparents are over for pizza. They just got back from visiting by Aunt Gerri in Virginia! Thefreakshow 21:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Just Kidding
Most of the time we don't need ice packs, just if we fall the wrong way. I actually fractured my neck once while trying to land on my head on a marble floor at Mickey's house. His mom freaked out and called an ambulance. It didn't even hurt. Did i mention I play basketball, ice hockey, and football, skateboard, rollerblade, and do ballet Thefreakshow 21:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Carefulness
I also got hit by a car once while skateboarding and broke my leg almost literally in half. The bone was sticking out and everything. Obviously safety isn't my thing, but I'll be careful so you aren't worried all week. You gotta get out there and live life on the edge. Go bungie jumping or something. I heard that's fun. And when I say fun, I mean dangerous. See you in the emergency room! Thefreakshow 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Not Judging
Sorry about that, it's just that all my friends are extreme action freaks. I was just trying to get you into the spirit of dangerous adventures. I wasn't saying your boring or anything. By the way, I don't consider myself a little girl, I'm almost 13. Almost a teenager. How old are you? Just wanna know in comparison to myself. Thefreakshow 21:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bye
OK, see you on the 30th! Thefreakshow 00:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA question
My point for asking that question was just to hopefully get you to see that you might be being a little unfair to JD. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see him made an admin, but your logic concerns me. After all, JD (and any admin candidate, really) has little to no control over who votes for them and who doesn't; shouldn't your vote be on the merits of the candidate themselves? --InShaneee 04:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was just getting around to 'threatening' you with fallout, as well. Step back for a second and realize the kind of precident you're setting here. Do you really want to see RfA's with votes such as "Oppose because X voted Support"? That seems to me to be the reason you're giving me for opposing. And as I said, I don't want this guy as an admin, either. It's just your reasoning in your vote that disturbs me. --InShaneee 04:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Lingeron, I thought we agreed to disagree so that this issue did not escalate (I received no response, so thus, it has to be assumed that you agreed). Why are you continuing to try and parade my advice around as a threat, thus escalating matters for the entire community? If people oppose because of the support votes, then we will not have any 75 percent majority, thus resulting in no more administrator promotions. Now please, I ask you to reconsider this viewpoint in fairness. &mdash; Deckill e r 04:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

in response to your comment
Lingeron, I thought we agreed to disagree so that this issue did not escalate
 * I didn't agree to anything.

(I received no response, so thus, it has to be assumed that you agreed)
 * Receiving no response does not deduct to assuming anything.

Why are you continuing to try and parade my advice around as a threat,
 * I paraded nothing. I found the threat you made (fallout) a tad disturbing and was discussing it with another editor.

thus escalating matters for the entire community? If people oppose because of the support votes, then we will not have any 75 percent majority, thus resulting in no more administrator promotions. Now please, I ask you to reconsider this viewpoint in fairness.
 * 1) one oppose vote out of 132 support votes does not constitute 75% of the vote and changes nothing.
 * 2) I said why I opposed. I still say that. I'm sorry if you don't understand it or don't like it. I stand by it. The more coersion I receive the more against this whole thing I get.
 * 3) Just come right out and say what you mean by fallout. Just say it.

You said something like you were sorry if you sounded frank. You don't. I am the one who is being honest. If you want to harass me and set the admins after me, go ahead. If you want to block me feel free, I certainly can't stop you. I said the same thing to InShanee. Sha nnon duck talk  08:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, Deckiller and InShanee, no hard feelings. I don't want to fight anymore. I don't want to be mean even if is in response to meaness. So peace..k? Sha  nnon duck talk  09:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Block
Hello. I blocked you for 24 hours for insults and personal attacks on Talk:Anarchism. When returning, please read Civility. Thank you. bogdan 17:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bogdangiusca. Thanks for blocking me. I mean this from the bottom of my heart. Since I am clearly a child who needs to sit in the corner with a dunce cap on and learn my manners, this is exactly where I should be! So I see your act of blocking me as an act of kindness and consideration for me and for the entire class, which I have obviously disrupted. The teacher, who is always right, has the certain and inalienable right to do just this.

Freedom, after all, is a thing which should be ascertained, not by the people, but by the government which rule the people. This is a thing that is agreed upon by all states: monarhcies, socialist states, fascist states republics that have been overtaken by oligarchies, etc. So I cannot do otherwise but to agree that your block is correct. We did have a chance at real freedom here in the U.S.A. at one time. But alas, it was doomed from the start by those who would steal it to ensure their own freedom and not that of us the people.

I do have a question, though. May I ask why you blocked me now for something that I am accused of doing yesterday? Why did you not block me yesterday? Sha nnon duck talk  17:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the same day to me. - FrancisTyers Â· 21:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It was the same day. My bad. Sha  nnon duck talk  00:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeesh
For someone who complains about all the "meanies" on Wikipedia, I don't think edit summaries like "removed lies (historical unfact) America doesn't owe it's anarchism to Europeans or Russians. Nice try Francis Tyler for taking credit for my edit and research (Jefferson)" will help you play well with others. --AaronS 12:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, but no thanks. If I take advice from someone about playing nice it will from someone who actually does play nice. Sha  nnon duck talk  15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You often accuse others of spreading lies, but you have yet to provide any evidence for your claims of conspiracy. Moreover, I have never attacked you. Perhaps you should take a step back and calm down a little. --AaronS 18:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Before you get defensive, let me state that I have been defending Anarcho-capitalism for some time now, so I am not against you, but I do have to point out that your argueing style is significantly destructive to any attempts at forming a consensus. Your personal attacks on The Ungovernable force ("Whatever an anarhchist is, it isn't you. Shannonduck talk 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)") and your bickering with the other editors is not helping our cause. I would greatly appreciate it if you calmed down a little, and took the discussions with a grain of salt while keeping a level head. We are not here to discuss the merits of any theory; our purpose here is to document the theory from an objective stand-point, all relevant issues included. I realize that you are not the primary antagonist here, there are plenty of other rude POV-pushers on the talk page, but I am addressing you because your actions are giving the article, as well as the editors defending the article, a bad name. Thanks. Two-Bit Sprite 17:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I get what you are saying, Two-Bit Sprite, and actually agree with most of it. The only thing that I find offensive, unfactual and sort of attacking is this statement you just made. "there are plenty of other rude POV-pushers on the talk page". Rude in response to rudeness I have been and am working at not doing now. A POV-pusher I decidedly am not. I only wish to maintain the integrity of the few excellent political articles we have left here, and round out the others to be neutral and factual. Other than that, thanks for the advice. I will and am in the process of taking it. Sha  nnon duck talk  19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I could have worded that better, I never meant to accuse you of being a POV-pusher, as I have not seen you explicitly pushing any POV. Thank you for taking my comments into consideration, it is rare to find someone willing to accept constructive criticism. Happy editing. :) Two-Bit Sprite 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As an addtion to this conversation I would invite any of it's readers to see the attacks on myself, Vision Thing, Intangible, RJll, Hogeye, and TheIndvidualist, and the psycho-warfare that has been played on the dissenters of these articles: anarchism, talk:anarchism; patriotism (a horror of an article) talk:patriotism; anarcho-capitalism, talk:anarcho-capitalism;  (a deliberate attempt at destroying the integrity of this excellent, featured article).
 * I definately agree, it is completely unacceptable that any editor which attempts to preserve the integrity of these articles is immediately disregarded as being a "sockpuppet" or whatever without considering the merits of thier edits. Two-Bit Sprite 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am, however, more than willing to not attack or insult other editors even in response to their nasty attacks on me and other dissenting editors or on their attacks on certain articles. Sha nnon duck talk  19:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Patriotism
Um um, what's wrong with it now? Not seeing something in it, I suppose. - MSTCrow 00:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Intangible
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Intangible. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Intangible/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Intangible/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 10:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Shannon
Dear Shannon, I hope you don't mind me dropping by your talk page; but if you have a minute, I'd like to express my thoughts to you regarding your concerns at several RfAs. Before saying anything else - no, I don't want you to change your vote at any RfA process - I mean to talk just in general, not regarding a particular case.

With utmost respect to your position, dear Shannon, I must respectfully disagree with your thought that there's an organized voting group behind the large number os Support votes at many RfAs. You see, I've been a regular voter for several months now, and if you dig in recent history you'll see my name appears quite often. I swear that I've never even talked with most of those who have ran for adminship in the last 3 months, yet I've expressed my opinion in many cases. In order to reach a conclusion, I usually study the candidate's contributions and overall conduct, and see if they meet my standards; and if they do, I find it adequate to support him/her. I can swear to you, over everything I hold sacred, that I've never, ever, not even once, been approached by anyone and asked to support a nominee for cliqueish reasons; my votes have always been decided by me, and by nobody else. And I am positive that this is also true with every other regular voter currently interested in the RfA process.

You must of course be aware of the Assume good faith policy. It basically expresses that, in absence of evidence that someone is acting with bad faith and unclear motives, we are expected to assume that said motives are good. Instantly assuming that, because a nominee has a large number of supporters, there is a clique muscling them in, is unfortunately against this principle; which I'm sure you'll agree with me, is a good one to follow. Why not assuming that a strongly supported candidate has received said endorsement because of hard work, of corteous and positive dealings with others, or remarkable contributions? Just between you and me, dear Shannon - have you ever taken the time to browse through a candidate's contributions, or his user and talk pages? They can tell a lot about a candidate, who is often a good person, willing to cooperate and work hard, and who has invested a lot of his/her time in our project.

By all means, I don't want you to switch any votes you have already expressed. But I humbly and friendly encourage you to assume good faith behind the RfAs of many good and dedicated contributors who sole "sin" has been to work hard and earn the respect of his/her peers. And if an objective and NPOV analysis of his profile and contribs reveals he's undeserving, do oppose, please - but not basing on an assumption that his motives are unclear.

If you wish to discuss this further, I am more than willing to do so, and you'll always be welcome at my talk page. I hope you don't take my suggestions badly; I merely wanted to share my views with you in a friendly way, and as I said above, I am always open to discussion. Have a great day, Phaedriel <b style="color:#FF0000;">â¥</b> The Wiki Soundtrack! âª  - 13:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a deep breath

 * Barnstars/Topical --evrik 21:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia clans
I appreciate your feedback and comments, but I guess I have to make it clear that I am not here to join some clan or take sides. The us-vs-them mentality is not what wikipedia is about. Whether or not I support anarcho-capitalism as a theory is entirely irrelevant, my goal here is to see it acurately and fairly presented from a historical and academic point of view. Your acusations of "aiding and abeting" implies your own biases and personal convictions, which should not be present on wikipedia. I am trying to restore balance to the article, and I think there are too many people attempting to pull the article to shreds with this tug-of-war, of which both sides are guilty. The fact that I even have to use that terminology is indicative of the biases involved. Thanks again and happy editing. Two-Bit Sprite 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Twobitsprite. First off the 'aiding and abetting' comment was a jokical one. I didn't think you would take it seriously. I hope you didn't take offense at this. However my comment does not imply my own biases and personal convictions. The facts are these:


 * 1) anarcho-capitalism is an excellent article.
 * 2) There is an obvious attempt at lowering the quality of this article, through a campaign of sabotage and endless reverts, in order to destabalize it. Destablizing an article is one way to get it to lose it featured status. If you are really interested in helping this article please go to the featured review that Aaron and Blah started and add your comments there. I'm not suggesting not editing the article ever. I'm saying this article is under attack by a group who would love to see it lose it's featured status and are doing their best to insert their POV.
 * 3) Any editing of it now is what AaronS and Blah and The Ungovernable Force want. That is what I meant by the 'aiding and abetting' comment.
 * 4) You said both sides are guilty of trying to pull this article apart. All the editing going on will pull this article apart. Sorry to have to say this but it's the truth, the comunist-anarchists are the ones who are deliberately trying to wreck this article.


 * I agree with what you said about it being irrelevant whether one is or is not anarcho-capitalist where editing this artricle is concerned. I have been accused of being an anarcho-capitalist because of my defense of this article. The funny thing is I am not an anarcho-capitalist anymore than those that accuse me of being one are anarcho-capitalist.


 * Featured status is not immortality. I feel it has been too long since this article has had a dissenting voice in it, and I am definately not going to just "leave it alone" because it was at one point a featured article. I feel we should instead embrace the opportunity to further improve the article by taking heed to those who disagree with us. Two-Bit Sprite 12:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as clans go I'm not asking you to join a clan, even though there is a strong division here. All I ask is that all of us leave this great article alone before it is no longer a great article . Sha  nnon <sup style="color:#3906A2;">duck talk  00:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology
I really appreciate that you not only realized that your comment was impolite but actually had the guts to apologize for it. That shows integrity. I have a longer response on my talk page. Let's share a cappuccino (with soy milk) and put this behind us. Just because we have different beliefs does not mean we have to attack each other as individuals. The Ungovernable   Force  07:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Your Changes
You posted the following changes on my bot's talk page: ''No thanks. I'll make changes to my own page. Sha nnon <sup style="color:#3906A2;">duck talk  06:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)''

When my bot modified your userpage, it was replacing a template that was about to be deleted. Trouble is, it replaced it with the non-case sensitive version, modifying the template. I apologize for any confusion and changing of userboxes. I have since corrected the error (but not on your page, because I don't want to be a nitwit vandal). You might want to check out WP:GUS for an explanation of what's going on. In the coming weeks, a lot of POV userboxes will likely be migrated to userspace, mostly by bots. Unless you remove or subst any POV boxes, they will likely be moved by a bot. Î± Chimp  laudare  12:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But please do let me know if you want me to fix your userbox. Î± Chimp   laudare  12:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * haha, thanks for the nice comments. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I'm proud to say that I have no opinion about the userbox issue. It really doesn't seem like the kind of crap I want to divide a community. By the way, you can always just subst the userbox code and then change what it says, but I'm sure you totally know that already. Regards, Î± Chimp   laudare  15:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Block warning
Don't make another abusive edit summary like this or I'll block you indefinitely as the obvious sock of one of the most abusive users that ever exhausted the community's patience. FYI, your blatant misuse of Talk:Anarchism for political rants unconnected with improving the article is WGee's business. Abuse of wikipedia pages is the business of all good-faith users. Even apart from the sock angle, you're cruising for a long block under your own steam. Don't attack people for telling you about wikipedia policy. Bishonen | talk 11:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC).


 * Bishonen, In response to your threats and accusations.
 * "Don't make another abusive edit summary like this [1] or I'll block you indefinitely as the obvious sock of one of the most abusive users that ever exhausted the community's patience."


 * 1) I am not Thewolfstar
 * 2) I am currently looking through (Maggie)Thewolfstar's contributions, pages, etc. and do not find this user to even be abusive, never mind  to be "one of the most abusive users that ever exhausted the community's patience". How do you come to that conclusion on this editor? (I find your statement rather hard to believe and kind of funny:one of the most abusive users..) Thanks for the chuckles.
 * 3) Your threat: "I'll block you indefinitely as the obvious sock" is rather abusive as I am not she and I am not a sock.


 * "FYI, your blatant misuse of Talk:Anarchism for political rants unconnected with improving the article is WGee's business."
 * My comments are relevant to the article for this reason. The communist or socialist leaning anarchist editors are repeatedly making statements to the Individualist-anarchist, anarcho-capitalist, and those who make edits that refer to U.S. anarchists, that claim that these types of anarchism don't exist. All I was trying to do was show that it is real anarchism. However, I see your point to a degree and will not do that anymore on an article talk page. I would also ask that the hostility, mind games, and POV pushing from the communist leaning editors stop, too, though.
 * "Abuse of wikipedia pages is the business of all good-faith users. Even apart from the sock angle, you're cruising for a long block under your own steam. Don't attack people for telling you about wikipedia policy." Bishonen | talk 11:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC).


 * WGee didn't just tell me about wikipedia policy.


 * 1) He placed a false and nasty template on my page. Please see here  This is abusive and comes under personal attacks
 * 2) He gave me a warning as if he were an admin, and had the power to block me. He isn't an admin and hasn't got those powers. Kindly see here
 * 3) You recently hounded, harassed and blocked MSTCrow, (and all your comments following this), then  , next . for doing the same thing that you are defending WGee for doing. Maybe I am missing something and will assume good faith. Can you explain the apparant contradiction in your actions?

Please stop accusing me of being Thewolfstar. Your accusations and harassment, and those of a sock named User:Laupheimer, and those of Bunchofgrapes, and WGee are really annoying and irritating. The political innuendos are horrendous. Please leave me alone. Thank you. Sha nnon <sup style="color:#3906A2;">duck talk  20:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the users mentioned above has "harassed" you. Specifically, WGee did not place any template whatever on your page. If you're referring to the sockpuppet template, it was posted by User:Laupheimer, as the page history shows. He did not give you a warning "as if he were an admin", and didn't say anything about blocking you himself. He gave you a warning as a responsible non-admin user would, correctly pointing out the high likelihood of your being blocked if your behavior continues. Your response to him was extremely insulting. If you want to continue using this account, you'll have to pull in your horns right now. Bishonen | talk 22:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC).


 * That wasn't the template I was referring to, but never mind that. I am indefinitely blocked now because some people think I might be a obvious sockpuppet or impersonator of thewolfstar? I'm not a sockpuppet of Thewolfstar or anybody else. I can't even see the resemblance, to be honest with you. Can you all stop this? Can you help me, Bishonen?  Sha  nnon <sup style="color:#3906A2;">duck talk  23:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Pattern of incivility
I'm seeing a disturbing pattern of incivility in your edits. Here are some diffs:, , (edit summaries) (edit summary, removing a warning from an administrator) (tone of comment) (tone of comment, apology noted but best to not be incivil in the first place, rather than to have to apologise)

These are just a few I picked at random, there are more where they came from, I fear. This is an official warning from an admin, and you are put on notice to please be civil. Further, removing this warning may subject you to being blocked, as at this point your behaviour has been noted on the noticeboard and warnings need to remain. ++Lar: t/c 11:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as an obvious sock puppet
This user is an obvious sockpuppet/reincarnation of the indefinitely blocked User:Thewolfstar.

See the discussion on the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents for further information. Geogre 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is outrageous
It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Thewolfstar!

'''I am not Thewolfstar. I am not an impersonator of Thewolfstar.''' I can't believe you are indefinitely blocking me for something that isn't true, and is based on a suspician that I might be a sockpuppet of someone! I am not Thewoflstar and have already answered Bishonen's questions. She never fully responded to my answers.

Please go here Where the following conversation can be found, with my responses.

The user Lingeron (talk • contribs • count) has been warned by user:Bishonen [79] and myself. [80] I'd like to see a checkuser run to substantiate or disprove the sock allegation made, though. ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Lar, pending the checkuser request, the user is a pretty obvious reincarnation of a permanently blocked user. At the very least, the summaries and contents are identical, and we can presumptively block given the abuse that brought her here. Geogre 13:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC) anyone able to maybe review my request once made? I've not done it before, and might flub. (But do know it's well documented and do understand the concept of following directions!) ++Lar: t/c 13:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am a pretty obvious reincarnation of a permanently blocked user? I am not even a reincarnation of Thewolfstar.
 * Will you please show me how my summaries and and contents are identical to Thewolfstar's?
 * we can presumptively block given the abuse that brought her here? You are blocking me on the abuse that another editor did and saying that it brought her here? I am not her so nothing but wanting to edit articles brought me here. This reasoning is insanse and based on nothing but erroneous suspicians!

''I'm fixing to go to wp:rcu? to make the request. The beseiged volunteers at checkuser can only reject the request. Geogre 14:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)''

''No need for CheckUser. CheckUser requests that we handle obvious socks without bothering them;''


 * There is a need for a checkuser! You insist that I am an obvious sock. It's not obvious to me. Can you please show some evidence that I am Thewolfstar?

''this is an obvious Thewolfstar sock. The account pretends to be a new user, using the "clever trick", typical of Thewolfstar socks, of "ignorantly" asking how to sign talkpage entries.''


 * I never asked anyone how to sign talkpage entries. I asked a friend how to make my signature a little fancier, and make it work in preferences, that's all. The signature improvement conversation is here User_talk:Lingeron

Yet it made a beeline for RFA, a sure sign of an experienced user, and generally knows its way around.


 * My welcomer user:WillMak050389 has a template on his page User:WillMak050389 for current rfa's. I borrowed it from him and put it on my page, just as I have borrowed userboxes from other's pages. I was curious about it and clicked into a rfa. That's how I knew about rfa's. Not because I am an experienced user.

It displays the same very unusual political interests profile as Thewolfstar,


 * My political interests are not at all like Thewolfstar. I am an anarchist who edits mostly anarchist related articles, and many others for the time I've been here. Thewolfstar, whose history I've been going through, edited mostly political party articles like Democratic_Party_(United_States)


 * I am an anarchist. Thewolfstar was not an anarchist.

the same disintererest in article editing


 * I have a strong interest in editing articles that is why I'm here. I've only been here for about a month.

Here is a link to my contribuion page. [] ranting on talkpages
 * I explained above, why I talked about anarchism here talk:anarchism. We U.S. individualist-type anarchists are being told that our idea of anarchy is not good enough, even that it doesn't qualify as anarchism. That's why I expounded about it. I won't do that again. I didn't even know that you weren't allowed to talk about stuff on a talk page. I thought that discussing an issue relevant to the aricle was okay on a talk page. There were many of us that discussed this whole thing and have been for most of the talk page. Also, these conversations were going on before I even started my account at Wikipedia!

some telltale turns of phrase


 * I don't know what to say to this as I don't see it and can't find the similarity.

''It knows and hates me (who originally blocked Thewolfstar indefinitely), and obviously followed my contributions to User talk:MSTCrow, a good place to rant. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC).''


 * I don't appreciate being called an 'it'. That was mean and honestly really hurt. I am not an it. I am a human being. I don't hate you, I don't even know you. I did not follow you anywhere, Bishonen. I was told by my friend User:Vision Thing, that User:MSTCrow was thinking of leaving and would I please talk him into staying. He asked me to do this in an email. I went to his page and did just that. I repeat, I did not have you on my watchlist and I don't even think you are yet on my watchlist. I didn't follow you and this is the truth.

Will you please reconsider this block? It is based on nothing and is outrageous in every possible way. I am a good editor. Please unblock me. Can someone help me get unblocked? Sha nnon <sup style="color:#3906A2;">duck talk
 * Actually, Thewolfstar claimed to be an anarchist on my talk page a while back. She never edited any anarchist related articles though as far as I know. The  Ungovernable   Force  05:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblock
I unblocked you, since on a second pass, there was clearly not enough concrete evidence for them to block you. However, please note that there will still be investigations. &mdash; Deckill e r 03:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Deckiller! I muchly appreciate your unblock. Sha nnon <sup style="color:#3906A2;">duck talk  03:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, everybody. I am very grateful that I am unblocked except for one thing. I am still blocked! I tried to edit on Deckiller's page to thank him for unblocking me and got a unblock message. Can someone look into that, please? Merci. Sha nnon <sup style="color:#3906A2;">duck talk  03:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Reblocked
Thewolfstar: This sock has has been reblocked indefinitely. Checkuser confirms this ID is a sockpuppet, protestations notwithstanding. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Please stop wasting the communities time and causing havoc. Note that you would have gotten away with your sockpuppetry if you hadn't immediately returned to your old incivil ways. If you had confined yourself to productive edits free of POV pushing and avoided attacking other users and points of view you might still be editing away under this sock with no one motivated to look into whether this was a sock or not. ++Lar: t/c 10:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

=The supposed checkuser= To Lar or anyone that might have been following this situation: The link you just provided Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents above, was there yesterday. It shows nothing but harassment (against me) and nothing of any evidence whatsoever that I am this (obviously despised and rather loud) editor Thewolfstar.

'''There has, as yet, been no checkuser run on me against Thewolfstar. I am still asking you to please run a checkuser. And if you would kindly do that, to also show the exact findings to all of us.'''

This whole thing is very disturbing, to say the least. It hurts me deeply as I am not only being accused of someting that isn't true, the decision is being made with no process at all, no evidence, as of course there isn't any, and by so few. I had understood this to be a community before I even started my account here. That is what it has been called in various places on the internet, blogs and news stories, namely by it's president, Mr. Wales.

I have gone through the policies, and will study them more thoroughly. What I have read of these policies thus far, demonstrates none of the activity that I have seen here in this accusation and then instant banning based on air.

So, I guess, a person can surmise, based on this whole snafoo, that Wikipdia policy goes something like this:


 * 1) Suspician
 * 2) We don't need evidence
 * 3) Block forever

'''This is not what it claims to be in news articles, etc. This is not what it's policies state. This is not what it's most important claim is, "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit'''"

And this is just plain incomprehensible, totally untrue and unfair!

'''Please stop this. Again, I am not Thewolfstar!''' Sha  nnon <sup style="color:#3906A2;">duck talk  15:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To admins, a checkuser was never run! Please look at current checkusers that are being run. Sha nnon <sup style="color:#3906A2;">duck talk  15:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * CheckUser was confirmed by User:Essjay in the discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard.--Rosicrucian 16:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

continued: still no checkuser has been run


 * No, Rosicrucian. A checkuser was still never run. Read the continued debate Administrators Noticeboard about whether I am Thewolfstar or whether there is enough evidence to conclude that I am Thewolfstar. The only check that was possibly run, but not actually shown to be run was an ip check per Essjay. As there is no link to this ip check, but only one to this image (Symbol keep vote.svg) can we all see it, please?


 * I see now that Thewolfstar did call herself an anarchist. I did not know this and have had only so much time to review this user's history. I'll continue to do so now, though.


 * Bunchofgrapes said that "I believe they also both frequently discuss Thomas Jefferson". I should hope that I am not the only editor who strongly admires Jefferson. Is that not allowed here? I am beginning to wonder. He also made this rather abusive remark, "After Bishonen warns her more directly, Lingeron posts this, including the fascinating "I am currently looking through (Maggie)Thewolfstar's contributions, pages, etc. and do not find this user to even be abusive". Forgive me, but if Lingeron's investigation was even cursory, that statement either makes her insane, or Thewolfstar. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)"
 * I am neither insane nor Thewolfstar. I have made some further investigation of this user and have found that she had quite a few friends and acquaintences and was quite kind to them and supportive of them. See these indications of civility, support and kindness., these two are hardly indicative of an abusive editor,

User_talk:Merecat/Archive1,, , , 8bitJake, and many more.


 * On the other hand I see a pattern of aggravation of this user and downright hostility. See these: (her first edit . If this was a comment of my first edit I would have reacted in an irritated way, too...who wouldn't? The comment, which Jersyko later describes as a 'boilerplate' was still an awfully nasty template. She goes on to apologize for her errors and he apologizes also. Is this the alleged abuse that she did? Here, again are these comments left on her page by ohers, which I find terribly abusive, User_talk:Thewolfstar/archive_1


 * I see harassment, sockpuppet witchunts, and a strong need to stifle a number of editors here. Particularly those that get in the way of the dominating editors of many political articles.


 * That she was loud and threw tantrums at getting 24 hr. blocks is indisputable. Tantrums are indication of immaturity - they are not synonomous with abuse.


 * I, on the other hand, have not thrown a tantrum at my one 24 hr. block. A little snide, perhaps, but snide is not equivalent with huge tantrums.

In any case I find Bishonen's accusation that Thwolfstar was the most abusive editor that Wikipedia ever had, hard to believe in the extreme. That's how I see it, I'm sorry.


 * 1) That I support this editor (Thewolfstar) does not make me Thewolfstar.
 * 2) That we agree on certain political issues, e.g. not caring for socialism, does not make me her, either. I am hardly the only editor on the wiki who doesn't go for socialism.
 * 3) Please see the harassment and sockpuppetry accusations of non-communist-anarchists here: talk:anarchism and talk:anarcho-capitalism, who pretty unanimously support my inclusion of Jefferson and Thoreau in these articles anarchism, Individualist anarchism and Anarchism in the United States. I'm sure there are other respecters of Jefferson at the wiki, in fact i'm sure there are many.
 * 4) Bishonen accused me (of being Thewolfstar) User_talk:Lingeron and of hating her and following her around and persecuting her because I defended User:MSTCrow at his talkpage. I am posting, below, the email that User:Vision Thing sent me requesting that I try and convince MSTCrow to stay, which I have done.
 * 5) Thewolfstar had an 18 year old son and presumably her own place to live. I am 19 years old, hardly have an 18 year old son, and am staying, right now with an aunt and uncle, and have stayed with different friends and edited from their computers, as well. The ips would be several, as per the varying locations and the fact that ISPs seem to arbitralarly change their customers ips.

Here is The email from Vision Thing

--

Message is not flagged. [ Flag for Follow Up ] Message has been replied to in the past.

Date: 	Mon Jul 24 16:02:42 2006

From: 	Vision Thing <anarchism@inbox.com>

[ Add to Address Book | Block Address | Report as Spam ]

To: 	<shannonlaunois@excite.com>

Subject: 	RE: getting confused

Hi, Unfortunately I won't have time to edit Wikipedia this week, since I've a lot a work until the end of the month. Don't be upset about a block, it happens and it doesn't really matter unless you are blocked too often. In that case, it can be used against you in an arbitration case. If you have time and will, try to contact user MSTCrow (see his user page for things in which he believes in/stands against) and talk him out of leaving Wikipedia.

____________________________________________________________

100% Spam Free Email - Get FREE 2GB Email with Challenge/Response feature! Get your free email account at http://www.inbox.com/spam !

--

(I struck out Vision Thing's email address as it unfair to him to let it be seen so easily in public.)

Most importantly, there is still no checkuser and no ip check that have been performed as of yet or even a request for one. I would be grateful for an actual checkuser or ip check and would like us all to see the results, not just a select few, which would demonstrate nothing. As an addition, I edit from friends and families homes and have no control over their internet connections.

Thanks again to Deckiller, who is an honest admin, deserving of admin priveleges, and thank you all for your thoroughness and honesty, in advance, Sha  nnon <sup style="color:#3906A2;">duck talk  19:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

On the nature of Checkuser
Very few people have been granted the permissions that allow them to run a CheckUser on Wikipedia; Essjay is one of them. When he says here that he is going to check into it and then here that "IP evidence is consistent with previous Thewolfstar socks. I'd call it ✅" he is talking about running a checkuser. Its results (the IP evidence in question) confirm that you are Thewolfstar. The fact that he reported his results at AN/I instead of in a WP:RFCU request is meaningless. As far as him making all the IP evidence from the checkuser public, it doesn't work that way: you don't get free hints on how to do a better job covering your tracks next time. We trust Essjay; he's not going to make up results. Goodbye. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My response to Bunchofgrapes

 * 1) The two links you point to point to the same place
 * Sorry, fixed the second one. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I appreciate that you trust Essjay. However, there has as yet been no checkuser done or even requested. You pointed here WP:RFCU . You might go there yourself and see that no checkuser request has been issued and no checkuser has been performed. Maybe he is busy and has forgotten to do it. Will you or someone ask him to actually do it?
 * 2) You seem to be confusing user accounts with IPs. User accounts refer to accounts like mine User:Lingeron or yours User:Bunchofgrapes. IPs are the numerical address that identifies the users' computers on the internet. Unfortunately, due to the fact that many ISPs change their customers ips radically and frequently, there isn't a lot to be put into this. In any case a checkuser and a ip check are not the same.
 * 3) It has not been confirmed that I am a sockpuppet of Thewolfstar. It is clear that I am suspected of being a possible maybe sockpuppet or impersonator of Thewolfstar.
 * 4) And finally, there are some who say that all that is needed is that someone says that "It is obvious that this user is a sockpuppet of so-and-so." It's a good thing that this system is not used in condemning people to the electric chair in real life. Because if one person could just come along and say "It's obvious that this person is the killer" and "no more evidence is needed to condemn this murderer to death", then we'd be in some state. I hope our system never goes that far. Sha  nnon <sup style="color:#3906A2;">duck talk  22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am a good editor and am asking that this obvious witchhunt that has come down on me, an innocent bystander, be stopped, and that I be given another chance to prove that a good and better behaved editor I will be. Thank you. Sha nnon <sup style="color:#3906A2;">duck talk  22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A checkuser and an IP check are the same. He is checking the IPs your user accounts have edited from, something only people with the Checkuser permission can do. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, ok. Thanks. He is checking ips now. I see. I haven't found it yet at WP:RFCU. Incidentally, if no checkuser or whatever has been run, why does it say that is has on one of the templates at the top of my page?  Sha  nnon <sup style="color:#3906A2;">duck talk  22:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I should have said "he checked the IPs..." not "He is checking". It's done. It was done before he reported the ✅ results on AN/I. It's over. It doesn't need to be at WP:RFCU. Being at WP:RFCU doesn't make it official. Essjay having said he's done it, and telling us his results -- which he did, on AN/I, as everyone but you understands -- that's what makes it official. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And to avoid any further denial of it, it apparently has now been made official on the checkuser page.--Rosicrucian 00:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Maggie, the moon isn't made of green cheese today
You've been cut lots of slack, given any number of new chances, been advised politely by many different editors about what you need to do to be a "good editor", and you invariably responded with rage and vitriol. When I say "you", I mean the editing you've done under this particular account, Maggie. The original Thewolfstar account was cut even more slack. The community has been extremely patient. "Lingeron" has exhausted that patience separately and independently, as well as turning out to be yet another member of one of Wikipedia's biggest and nastiest sockfarms. If you have any interest at all in ordinary editing, don't waste any more time telling us the moon is made of green cheese. Go make another sock (you've probably got several already started) and edit non-abusively with it, and nobody will recognize Maggie Thewolfstar. Bishonen | talk 22:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC).

To everyone
Oh, thanks. I thought this page was protected. I tried to edit it before but couldn't. No matter what anybody thinks or what anybody says. I am not Thewolfstar. I see where you did some kind of check here, but it wasn't a user check and no evidence at all was presented. Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Thewolfstar, and still fail to see how this proves that I am this user. Everyone listed on the page seems to think that I am not Thewolfstar and leans toward unblocking me. No actual comparison of me to her has been performed and that, I believe, is because there is nothing to be found, and everyone knows it.

There is one thing, though, that I can see. We both have edited from a roadrunner account. I can tell you that roadrunner is the only cable connection one can get around here, there is nothing else. Also, I've asked my cousin about it and he says that their ip has been the same, at least, since last March. I saw that Thewolfstar was blocked indefinitely in May. My aunt and uncle who actually pay for this internet connection, might be interested to know how their IP is the same as Thewolfstar's IP. Maybe she snuck in their house at night when they were sleeping and used their computer to edit Wikipedia.

Thewolfstar's IP according to the checkuser page was:24.161.22.244 This is not our IP and you know it.

Also, Bishonen you accused Thewolfstar's socks that edited from a dialup connection and this is a cable connection.

I was not in a rage about anything before, only annoyed, but I can tell you that I am pretty upset now with the conclusions that you all are drawing concerning this sockpuppet thing.

This is on Bunchofgrapes page
User_talk:Bunchofgrapes

Phaedriel RfA Sockpuppet

''I doubt we'll be able to get a checkuser though; I don't think it'll be conclusive enough. Plus, Phaedriel doesn't seem to mind it ^_^ — Deckiller 22:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)'' ''Yup. Thewolfstar's wise to the way of Open Proxies, so checkuser wouldn't be of much use. Probably not worth sweating about. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)''

''Are you guys sure? Open proxies are automatic indefinite blocks, so at least it's worth uncovering each of them that we can. Geogre 03:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)'' ''I can't speak for Deckiller; speaking for myself, I am never sure about anything. Are they even doing Checkusers now, though? Is the labor strike over? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Yeah, I don't know if there's anywhere near enough evidence. — Deckiller 04:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)''


 * Is this what this is about? Because I voted oppose at Phaedriel's rfa? I was threatened with fallout when I voted oppose at another user's rfa. If you can't vote how you want to vote, well, then there is no vote. This much is pretty clear.


 * You will all do what you're going to do no matter what I tell you or no matter what proof I show you anyhow. And the fact is there is darned little evidence that I am this user, and most people don't even believe it.


 * My aunt and uncle and cousins are not using open proxies, and I certainly am not, either.


 * And also, Bishonen, I can only talk for myself, I can't talk for Thewolfstar. I don't hate you. I can't hate someone that I don't even know. It seems to me, from your actions and the things that you have said so far to MSTCrow and to me, that the one that is full of hate is you. Sha  nnon <sup style="color:#3906A2;">duck talk  04:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This page has been protected
Thewolfstar: you do not get to interfere with official notices or templates. You know better. But since you have interfered, this page has been protected. You will have to use email for any further communication until and unless this protection is lifted. ++Lar: t/c 05:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thewolfstar emailed me. Text is here. Summary: Wikilawyering and wilful failure to understand what has been explained several times. No reason to change anything ++Lar: t/c 10:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)