User talk:Lonmower

User:G77
I don't see anything suspicious, she might have substantial experience as an anon editor or have set up a new account after a vanishing. The problem particularly with arson is that it does not (yet) set out the original common law (e.g. Hale, Blackstone, Coke et al) so there's not much of a framework to hang anything on. Since the article is part of the criminal law project, it would make sense to leave out a lot of stuff about pyromania, political offences etc, and I intend to get round to that. She has (wisely, in my view, but then I would say that) followed the structure of burglary but so far I don't see an issue. I'm not an American lawyer so I can't judge whether her edits there are up to scratch without spending some time looking through the refs. I'm keeping an eye on the article, but if you have any other concerns, let me know. Cheers. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 14:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Lonmower. I'm new to wikipedia so I don't know when it's OK to change something that someone added to an article. I've change a lot of information on the arson article, but, you were the first person to complain, so I didn't know I might offend anyone. The last thing I want to do is anger anyone out there in cyberspace. I'll definitely try to let you know before I change anything you write. I look forward to working with you. =) Feel free to write me back on my user page.


 * Oh, by the way, (I guess this is really more in response to Rodhullandemu), the arson article does set out the original common law; it cites directly to Blackstone. It's reference #3.--G77 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Greetings G77, thank you for your replies. The concerns I expressed to you and Rodhullandemu may only be the result of a bizarre coincidence, there are some controversies elsewhere on Wikipedia which led me to infer ulterior motives to your edits, and it will be hilarious and harmless if my infuction abilities are at fault.(LOL, if deduction is to deduce, is infuction to infer?) Lonmower (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

G77's ulterior motives
You've piqued my curiosity. What do you suspect my ulterior motives are for edits?

P.S. It might be a few days before I check for a response to this message. Sorry, very busy week coming up. --G77 (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello. Have you edited Wikipedia via another username in the past six weeks or so? Lonmower (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Greetings. No, I have never used Wikipedia under a different name. I just started toying around with it, I guess a couple of months ago. I saw the arson article and thought "hey, I can do better than that." I haven't had as much time as I would like to contribute, but, I guess every little bit counts. I've looked through a lot of the legal articles and the work seems endless. Anyway, I don't mean to ramble on. Has someone tried to vandalize the arson article in the past under a different name? Why on earth would someone want to do that?
 * While edit history of the article about arson probably shows more instances of overt vandalism than average, I don't suspect you in any of those instances. It's just that you began editing the arson article when another user was conspicuously focused on the topic, a user who was later found to be surreptitiously and obsessively altering the bias of certain articles. It just seems odd that you would create a username, declare you're a Christian who believes in "separation of church and state" --and then straightaway fixate on the topics of arson and burglary. On the face of it, ulterior motive is indicated. Furthermore, you seem to be interested in adding not only material and cites, but a certain "spin" or "slant," a tactic also indicative of ulterior motive. Your explanation you felt to improve the article on arson makes sense enough, but I'm curious what if anything drew your attention to the article in the first place.Lonmower (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A slant toward what? I have no idea what you're getting at. What gain could I possible have in mind for creating a bias in this article. I could understand if I was editing an article on a current political figure or a hotly debated topic. But, arson? Also, why would saying that I'm a Christian and then editing the arson article indicate ulterior motive?--G77 (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to drop the subject in lieu of being more specific in my allegation of hanky-panky. I don't want to be embarrassed to learn that coincidence and faulty inference on my part have carried the day. Lonmower (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I enjoyed the debate. I think it was beneficial. Feel free to challenge any future entries. I look forward to working with you. --G77 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)