User talk:Vanished user 342562/Archive 2

SSP
On your SSP report, granted they are not new users and edit sequentially, but where's this disruption/vio of WP:SOCK, aside from that? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It would have been voter fraud. And just as an update — I filed for checkuser and all three of the accounts, , and  were confirmed as well as three other accounts as stated at the checkuser page.  All were blocked.    Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
And thanks for signing my autograph page and you're welcome. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. And I will be sure to ask you for help with my page. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You have new messages
On Commons. 哦，是吗？ (O-person) 22:27, 07 January 2008 (GMT)

Mike Huckabee user box
There might be some who point out that it's inappropriate to advocate for particular candidates on your user page. Just thought you should know. ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should check out this page, and take a look at 'What Links Here' for a given userbox.  Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 20:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, there certainly seem to be a lot of those. Take care. By the way, the "talk" link in your sig I think takes one to your user page rather than to user talk. Dunno if that's what you intended. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Civil War list
I'm glad you like it. Thank you for the barnstar!  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   23:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks for the barnstar. It means a lot. -- Shark face  217  01:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock
It was the same user, User:George in Australia. The block was extended, which was why the Autoblock activated again. Woody (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Now I understand.    Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Just The Facts Ma'am...
Hello Diligent...

Adding well documented statements of fact that directly contradict a candidates own current "Official Position" is healthy in a free and open forum like wikipedia. Like with others who are critical, I don't see you being critical of editors who only make reference to un-encyclopedic sources such as a candidate own controlled web page or an un-referenced list of "official positions". According to your reasoning, the political positions section of each candidates page might as well be a direct link to their own web site or positions list from their own hard drive.

As for me I will continue to promote wikipedia as a free medium where by the lobbyests and special interests do not have a corrupting advantage over the rest of us. This is not in violation of any wiki rules and is in fact extactly what we are supposed to be encouraging in this free and open forum where the well referenced facts rule. As for you... Just the facts Ma'am Anappealtoheaven (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So you know, I too have tried to speak to him about his obvious POV editing, and he left me exactly the same message, with the same implied gender-based insults. I am considering preparing a WP:AN/I report about his behaviors. thoughts? ThuranX (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please show me an example of my POV editing. The only thing I really added to that article was that he (Mike Huckabee) supports the border wall (which he does).  And sorry it's a fence not a wall.  But that's not POV at all.   Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 17:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry I thought you were talking about me doing the POV edits. Sorry I got defensive.  Yes, I think a WP:ANI would be a good plan.  Not sure if that's where we should report it there or somewhere else.  They are very obvious POV edits and maybe he should just be blocked.  The comment he left you & me is also rude and uncivil.   Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 17:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Was the Mike Huckabee article the only place he was editing with a POV?  Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 17:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:COIN might be a better place to report this.  Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * COIN's a good suggestion. No, he's also edited to take cheap shots at McCain, Romney... anyone NOT Ron Paul. I'll work on the report and let you knwo when I post it, so you can add any opinions or facts you also feel are relevant. ThuranX (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'd appreciate that. Maybe should also notify the others who have posted similar comments before us on his talk page warning him of his POV edits.   Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 17:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * NO, I think that might come off as CANVASsing, whereas you and I are the most current situation. I'll mention previous notices in the report. ThuranX (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We could get him blocked temporarily for violation of the Three Revert Rule.   Diligent Terrier  • talk | sign here 18:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how, I don't see it in his edit history, but I may be missing something... diffs? I'll look here for your reply. ThuranX (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The report is up on AN/I. read it through, follow the links, and then ,if needed, comment. your warning and the reply are already noted, as are the Huckabee edits, so Idoubt much more is needed, but please review. ThuranX (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your support at AN/I would be welcome on this matter. ThuranX (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, he was blocked before you posted to the AN/I. As far as I know, he served his block out, didn't appeal it, and I have no interest in checking up on him and his edits. Should I cross paths with him again, I'll worry about him then. I'm not in the habit of seeing what's up with users once the situation's been resolved, except for a couple of sock puppeteers I know about. ThuranX (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Regarding your merge proposal for Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors, ordinarily I would agree, but have you looked at how long Hillary Rodham Clinton is? We don't need to add anything back into there, that's why so many subarticles have already been split out of it. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)