User talk:Uraliams


 * Would you agree to having us run a Checkuser to confirm that you are not Bruce999? Pastor Theo (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Part of the compelling behavioral evidence here is the deep knowledge of WikiMarkup, especially with regard to sourcing codes, in the first edit. New accounts of users unfamiliar with Wikipedia just don't make edits like that with the first attempt.  It is patently obvious based on that alone that this is not your first account, Bruce99999 is the most likely connection since, besides displaying an indepth knowledge of esoteric aspects of Wikipedia editing, you also make substantially the same edits as does he and his sockpuppets.  Checkuser would be moot at this point. -- Jayron  32  05:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You are failing to answer the question set you. It is very clear that you are familiar with wikipedia procedures. Claiming that this is not so is not believable. How have you acquired this experience? --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be good if I could actually respond to you. I edited as an anon for quite some time at university and have learnt some things. There is nothing wrong with that or editing nicola roxon. Run a checkuser. I'm not that good, I don't know how to do references and just copy the code ( replacing the website). The big thing is that I have made one edit as a non anon. ONE EDIT! Run a checkuser. It is wrong to not allow me to respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.19.242.63 (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Checkuser cannot prove a negative. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses! ) 21:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)