User talk:Lunalet

Welcome!

Hello, Lunalet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Taqi Haider (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Taqi Haider! Lunalet (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw your contributions in the afd discussion here, however you have no contributions whatsoever on wikipedia other then the mentioned edits, furthermore your account was created only minutes ago, yet you seem have a good insight regarding Wikipedia polices.Keeping these facts in mind I want to ask you who you are? and do have a sock puppet on wikipedia? Taqi Haider (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and thank you for asking! I used to edit Wikipedia, long, long ago—back in '07. I lost interest and retired. Now my interest has been revived by the exponential growth of Wikipedia. Since I have forgotten the name of my original account, I created this account. I hope that your doubts have been cleared by this information, and feel free to ask more of me should you have a need to. Lunalet (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lunalet - you comment on my talkpage is redundant, as I have the article on my watch-list and would have seen the AfD tag anyway. Lugnuts (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, Taqi Haider was attempting to game the system. Lunalet (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am notifying people and not trying to game the system, I mentioned my message on the afd page, and here only because Lugnuts is the one who raised the suspicion there. My message on your talk page is was posted before my knowledge of lugnuts suspicion. Taqi Haider (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to your allegations that I am a sockpuppet (absurd!). You are gaming the system the textbook case. Why did you notify only Ravenswing and Lugnuts, both of whom always vote to keep aircrash articles? I'm know there are many others interested in this AfD who would vote delete (like User:Mikemoral). Lunalet (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on WikiProject Karachi and both the articles are in the scope of the project. There is a considerable amount of input by the said editors on that afd, and I simply asked for their opinion on the matter. Taqi Haider (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see neither Lugnuts nor Ravenswing in this list. Lunalet (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my message on their talk pages. Taqi Haider (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I now see that you referred to a previous discussion in which both Ravenswing and Lugnuts participated and voted keep. If you are to notify people that may be interested in the present discussion (everyone who voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Karachi plane crash), you should be notifying EVERYONE, not just people you know will say keep. You are slowly losing your claim to integrity Lunalet (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was unaware of the policy, sorry for that, I was notified and have already accepted my mistake. Please stay on topic instead of trying to convert this into to a personal blame game, this section was created to discuss your edit not mine. Taqi Haider (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you've chosen to make this personal and to cast false aspersions on me, but you have only to look in the mirror to realize that dishonest smears are corrupting no matter what our perspective and beliefs. Lunalet (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing further to add on this matter. Taqi Haider (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad. I have no wish to interact with such a dishonest bloke. Good night. Lunalet (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy which I can use to file report against this user? Under no circumstances should anyone be allowed to accuse me for being dishonest or something that I did in good faith and was genuinely unaware? Taqi Haider (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already been "reported ... to the appropriate authorities" by Baseball Bugs down there. You really are disoriented. Lunalet (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What prompted you participate in said afd discussion, I am sure there are many other articles nominated for deletion. Moreover I checked all your contributions, and noticed that you made a lot edits just to complete the header, which proved that your are new to the writing style. Your previous user name will be essential please think about the articles you edited in 2007, your command on the polices is striking, and if what you are saying is true then you should remember your username instead of all the policies in Aircrash Afds. Taqi Haider (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

1. I participated in this specific discussion because I saw it being discussed on ANI. I remember that place as a slaughterhouse!
2. I made many edits to fix the syntax of my vote because I am new, in a way, to this style of voting. We used to just slap our votes down on the table without any formatting. I'm not sure when that changed.
3. Why should I remember my username instead of policies? It's been 3 (almost 4) years since I left, so it's understandable that I would forget my wiki identity, as it was completely separate from my real identity. I remember the policies distinctly because they are an essential element of order on Wikipedia; without them, Wikipedia would be the typical disorganized shopping site like Craigslist. Lunalet (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually people remember their name and identities and their collaborations, my first major edit was the disambiguation of fusion when there were no tools available to do so, and I had to go the list of 'what links here' to do it. So I am asking a very simple question, can you prove that you edited wikipedia back in 2007? I want to know what projects you worked on? which articles you watched? what was your username? anything will do. Further more you created the account on 12:29 29 Nov 2010 and edited the said afd on 12:30 29 Nov 2010, I find it hard to believe that you went through the lot of ITN and singled out this entry then went through the article and then went through all the comments on the Afd and replied appropriately. Taqi Haider (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't prove I edited Wikipedia back in 2007. I saw the thread on ANI about this AfD because it was at the BOTTOM, where all the fresh incidents go. Lunalet (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'll have to get someone to check you,because frankly I think you are a multi account. Taqi Haider (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, "multi account"... Lunalet (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's that supposed to mean? please excuse my english, it is not my mother tongue. Taqi Haider (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry. Lunalet (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lunalet, I don't think that you are a sock on MickMacNee, as that is not his style. He does have a few "followers" who have been known to impersonate him in the past. Such behaviour usually leads to a block for the impersonator.

Can you remember what articles you edited back then? Checking the article's history may jog your memory as to your previous username. If you've lost access to that account and want to use this account, there is no problem. Using both accounts at the same time is sockpuppetry (legitimate alternate accounts excepted). If you do remember your previous account, just mention it here or via a simple notice on your user page. Mjroots (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mjroots. I honestly do not remember anything I did with my previous account. I was not a content creator nor did I do vandalism reversion. I mostly frequented AfD and ANI. Lunalet (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember any afd articles? Taqi Haider (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back in '07? Absolutely not. Lunalet (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI history from December 2007 and earlier, to search and earlier month, change "December" to the relevant month. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to sift through that. Lunalet (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...that's taking a long time. Not seeing anything I recognize. Will continue looking. Lunalet (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously either a sock or an impersonator, and I have reported you to the appropriate authorities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC) They decided to take no action. For now. But you'll be watched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That pleases me. Lunalet (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It stretches my credulousness way beyond breaking point that you cannot remember your former ID. Please try to do so. Some of your contributions to the AfD are borderline uncivil, please watch that. --John (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sir. It marvels me that you have trouble grasping WP:CIVIL yourself. Lunalet (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling tells me, this is an impersonator who's hoping to get Micky blocked. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my bet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to impersonate anyone. Just giving my opinion on an AfD where people are tag-teaming to railroad the discussion. Lunalet (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag-teaming is a serious accusation. It implies that two or more editors have organised themselves to take a certain course of action. Two or more editors holding the same point of view and expressing that point of view does not a tag team make. If you have evidence of tag-teaming, then you'd best raise it at the usual venue. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have solid evidence of tag-teaming. It's always the same people voting to keep aircrash articles at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Karachi plane crash, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 32, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 New Zealand Fletcher FU24 crash, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filair plane crash, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIRES Flight 8250, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katekavia Flight 9357, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agni Air Flight 101, and many more. It's always the same people: User:Lugnuts, User:Mjroots, User:Ravenswing, User:BilCat, User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao, User:C628, User:Wikireader41, and User:WhisperToMe just to name a few. Those who have yet to vote in the current discussion I expect will come through later in the week. The night is young. Lunalet (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone who votes 'keep' is tag teaming? Taqi Haider (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, welcome back! No, that's not what I said. Everyone who CONSTANTLY GOES TO EVERY AIRCRASH AFD to vote keep. Your dishonest canvassing played a part in this tag-teaming. Lunalet (talk) 07:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that they are members of the Aviation Porject or Accidents Projects? and want to record the relevant events in a proper manner, wikipedia is not handing out awards for Afds, you are the only opposition on the discussion who never leaves the page and comments on every keep vote, why do you do that?.Taqi Haider (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you all parrot the same nonsensical questions? I've already answered that on the goddamn AfD page. Lunalet (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion that they belong to a WikiProject makes their tag-teaming even more egregious. As a WikiProject, they JOINTLY descend upon the discussions, shouting to keep their articles, since of course, they have vested interests for their project. Lunalet (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paying projects to create more articles, these votes are genuinely based on the concern that wikipedia should record these events because they meet the criteria for inclusion. Taqi Haider (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you are speaking for the group. Speaks more to your dishonesty and is indicative of the back-channel dealings that result in tag-teaming. Lunalet (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing your personal attacks on various pages, as it will make the admin's decision to block your ID all that much easier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expressing a faulty opinion in an attempt to discourage me. "Dishonest" does not transgress WP:NPA. I suggest you reacquaint yourself with policy. Lunalet (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're funny. And regarding your comment about what some editors "always" do - you've been here for like 1 day. How can you possibly know what a group of editors "always" do? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you haven't a high school diploma. They ALWAYS vote keep because I can see the history. All the AfDs. Lunalet (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All in one day. An amazing amount of effort just to argue against a plane crash article. I've reported you to the appropriate authorities again, as your situation is no longer "stale". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you never stop toiling away! Lunalet (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you've truly been here for only 1 day, you can't possibly know what everyone here "always" and "never" does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to have been here since the beginning to be able to infer the propensities of people here. I departed in 2007, but I was not a newbie when I departed. I'm back, and I still remember vaguely how to look through page histories, diffs—all that MediaWiki-specific stuff. It's simple enough to look at past AfDs and understand how people tend to vote. Lunalet (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for continuing to own up to sockpuppetry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you misunderstand. "I was not a newbie" does not imply I was blocked. A hypothetical situation: you leave Wiipedia, and return in 2014, forgetting your username. Everything I said about myself now applies to you. Lunalet (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my apparent lack of a high school diploma, I do have a pretty good memory. And since you have conveniently "forgotten" your old ID, there's no way to check whether you're telling the truth. But your continual personal attacks on everyone have destroyed whatever good faith you might have been accorded, so don't be surprised that no one believes that story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith never existed on Wikipedia—there are always ulterior motives. Remember that. Lunalet (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question you have ulterior motives. It's funny how you can't remember your ID from 3 years ago, yet you somehow know everyone's editing history here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just won't accept that reading editors' comments at AfD discussions speaks a lot to their tendencies. Lunalet (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question about you: why are you badgering me? Lunalet (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should stop feeding trolls. See ya. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are a funny chap. ←Lunalet ^{S'up, Lad?} bunnies→ 08:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've split this conversation from the one above, and formatted it for easier readability. No changes have been made to any comments etc. Lunalet, you need to cut down on the ABF, or you will find yourself at WP:ANI. As you state you are familiar with ANI, then I needn't remind you of what can happen there. Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning that up. I'm editing articles now; I won't be touching that AfD soon. I'm already reported to AIV by my friend Bugs up there. Lunalet (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Qantas Flight 32 is one of the few AfDs where I actually !voted "delete", as it didn't seem to quite meet notability requirements. It later became apparant that the incident was worse than originally reported, and I changed my !vote to keep. Since the AfD closed, further developments have revealed that the incident was even more serious. Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems as if you do have some integrity, but right after your vote people were playing follow the leader. There's always a few good apples. Anyhow, as I said above, I won't be messing with AfDs for a while. I'm going to concentrate on doing some content work, something I've rarely tried. Cheers and happy editing! Lunalet (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For information, these are my own thoughts on the notability of aircraft accidents. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll check that out after I finish dealing with this POV-pusher. Lunalet (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mm, how about dealing with me first? So you have "solid" evidence that I'm a tag-teamer? That I "CONSTANTLY GOES TO EVERY AIRCRASH AFD to vote keep?" Stick it in your ear, sport. I may have voted in three of them; I recall voting in only two. As it happens, I am a frequent contributor at AfD, and have put in just a bit under five thousand edits there. In that time, I've often observed people who believe that folks couldn't possibly routinely disagree with their POV absent willful chicanery or malice, and the concept that different folks can have sincere, consistent and different stances on the rules provokes angry incomprehension. Since discussing the concept never proves productive, I'll stop right here.  Ravenswing  02:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a HILARIOUS rant, yet truth was completely wanting. Would you mind writing me a couple more to read for amusement? Lunalet (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain how this is done. I apologize if I am breaching a protocol by attempting to communicate in this way, but looking at this format, I believe I am doing this properly. I mean no disrespect. I am also not a POV pusher at all. I am accurately reporting the stated views of someone, and citing his exact quotes, in a section about his political views! It is apparent that you didn't take even a moment to review what was written or deleted by an actual troll. I respectfully ask that you actually read the material involved before making a snap judgement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigvanquixote (talk • contribs) 10:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No important protocol breached. I will look into it more. Lunalet (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. You will also find that the troll editor is bashing LGF and me in his comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigvanquixote (talk • contribs) 10:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to remove the section altogether until the content dispute is resolved. Lunalet (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could have just clicked the cited links and found that those were Johnson's own words expressing his very own political views. Since this was a section on his political views, and this is a rather famous blogger, whose split with the right caused a lot of ripples, what was written was dead accurate and easily checked. Or you could have looked at what the troll was trying to replace it with. Or you could have looked at the comments of the troll. You could have done any number of those things. Yet you chose not to. This would have taken between 30 seconds to five minutes of clicking on your part. Any of those things would have quickly "resolved" any "issue." I am appalled. Ludwigvanquixote (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that was Johnson's words; however, I also did see the IP's cited contributions. I am appalled as well that you are acting like such a dick about this. I could go ahead and file a report at the edit warring noticeboard and get you blocked. Be constructive for once, and DISCUSS with the IP on the talk page of the article. Lunalet (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you are so eager to edit war, but when someone suggests that you DISCUSS THE GODDAMN ARTICLE, you both quiet down and shut up. Lunalet (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The individual involved is from a stalker site that exists to defame Johnson. Talking would produce nothing, and a simple look at the Johnson talk page will show how that works out. I am not trying to be a "dick" about anything. I apologize if I have offended you by simply asking for the most elementary of fact checking on your part before snapping to a judgement.

If you saw that I was posting Johnson's very own words about his very own political views in a section about his political views (!) then you must acknowledge that there was no POV pushing. If you saw an obvious troll bashing Johnson in his comments, and repeatedly removing those statements of Johnson's views, then it becomes apparent who the POV pusher was. I am new to editing wikipedia. I was not aware of the 3rr rule and now that I am I will keep it in mind. I have no particular desire to anger the powers that be at Wikipedia. Even when those powers that be, are officious and unwilling to do basic investigation.Ludwigvanquixote (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's version has the same citations as you do in yours. I don't see the IP defaming ANYONE. Where do you have evidence that the IP "is from a stalker site that exists to defame Johnson"? Please do not make unfounded accusations. As for power, I have none of it. I'm a recently returned editor who left back in 2007. Your allegation that "talking would produce nothing" is simply faulty. Talk:Charles Foster Johnson appears rather serene; I see no evidence of you or the IP trying to discuss the content and come to a conclusion.

I am aware that you posted Johnson's blog post verbatim into the article, but the IP's contributions were also valid. Please discuss on the talk page. Lunalet (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do not want to draw you into a long standing blog feud between Johnson and his former banned posters. As to the accusations ::::being unfounded though, I would submit to you, respectfully, the following lines from the troll in its edits:

""For the split". Ha Ha. Some lunatic changes his opinion faster than Paris Hilton changes boyfriends and he calls it "a split". Ha Ha.) "

Strongly held opinions for several years, which were formed for well stated reasons do not constitute the Paris Hilton reference.

or:

" Wikipedia is not LGF. Here it is about facts, not opinions"

Are some strong indicators of bias on the part of the troll. The blog in question that exists to defame Johnson is ::::http://diaryofdaedalus.com/ I recognize these people because they have been stalking us for years and brag about defaming Johnson on ::::their site.

Again, I do not wish to enjoin you to a persistent web-feud. However web stalkers are real things. There are some very, very angry ::::people on the web with way too much time on their hands, and this was one of them. I will be completely upfront. I am an avid ::::contributor to the LGF blog and a friend of Johnson's. However, since I was verbatim quoting his own words about his own views in a ::::section about his views, there was hardly any inaccuracy. Further his blog has persistently held those views for quite some time as even ::::the most cursory examination of it will reveal. As to links which were deleted, you also did not read the snarky language of

the troll around those links. What I wrote was accurate representation of the clearly expressed and strong views of Mr. Johnson ::::rather than a misrepresentation of them by those who despise him for banning them from his blog.Ludwigvanquixote (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The blog in question that exists to defame Johnson is ::::http://diaryofdaedalus.com/ I recognize these people". - Ludwigvanquixote accuses me of being a part of some conspiratorial blog which "exists to defame Johnson". I categorically deny ever participating to that blog, or, for that matter, participating in any conspiracy to defame Charles Johnson, whether real or existing only inside the head of Ludwigvanquixote. What we do know for a fact (both from a link which I have provided in the discussion page in the Charles Johnson entry, as well as the subsequent admission to this effect by the said contributor, quote: "I am an avid ::::contributor to the LGF blog and a friend of Johnson's"), is that he is not only a personal friend of Johnson (and therefore, we can assume - and I intend to prove that soon in this page - perfectly happy to lie to defend his friend's reputation, but also he has an additional interest in maintaining the questionable reputation of Charles Johnson's LGF web site (Ludwigvanquixote has himself admitted in his contributions to the Charles Johnson entry that the right-wing blogosphere harshly criticizes the LGF blog) as Ludwigvanquixote has his own personal blog (with - surprise, surprise - opinions very similar to Johnson's) in that very web site. Link to Ludwigvanquixote's blog is provided in my comments in the discussion page of the Charles Johnson entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.6 (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, for the proof that Ludwigvanquixote is perfectly willing to lie to defend his friend Charles Johnson (and himself): A reference provided in the Johnson entry stated that he used to post blog entries in LGF which deny global warming. Ludwigvanquixote promptly added the word "once" to that sentence, to claim that Johnson made only ever one such claim before he changed his mind. (See history of revision of Charles Johnson's page for the "once" addition by Ludwigvanquixote - whom, as a regular participant in Johnson's blog, should know it as the back of his hand, and anyway not claim things that he does not know for a fact are true.) However, a search in Johnson's blog LGF reveals DOZENS of such claims. "I think Al Gore’s wrong. We’re not experiencing global warming. "^[1] is just another such claim out of a list of dozens which can be revealed by a simple search of LGF's archives. Why then did Ludwigvanquixote deceitfully claim that Johnson only "ONCE" denied Global Warming? Answer: because obviously providing glowing one-sided romantic and favorable opinion on his FRIEND Charles was not enough. He decided he may as well remove some links and claim - yes, deceitfully - that other links provided which prove Charles made claims that are 180 degrees to what he now claims, are only one-offs. Signed: 131.217.6.6 (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on this page and at AfD are running afoul of this policy. Furthermore, I see you've been here two days, yet know a great deal about policy. So what's your story? How do you know all this? N419BH 07:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you bothered to read this page before offering misinformed, clueless comments, you would already know the answer to that. Lunalet (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Forgot your username" and are at AfD, and guild of copyeditors elections, seeming to have a beef with a couple of the candidates? What areas did you edit in under your forgotten username? Did you have any restrictions/sanctions? N419BH 09:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And before you ask, yes, I have read the sections above, and am aware of your answers to the concerns other editors have expressed above. N419BH 10:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I still plan on improving the article. I just withdrawed to gain more expeience a's the concerns you brought up are a bit too recent for my liking. Thanks and happy editing! Derild4921Review Me! 16:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly hope you succeed and reenter the election, as there are some dishonest candidates out there. Lunalet (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2011. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators/2011. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

If you are unable to participate in good faith, I see no reason to allow you to participate at all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LAz17. Thank you.

As you are blocked, you may respond here and your statement will be placed on the SPI page for you. N419BH 20:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]