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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A question about you: why are you badgering me? Lunalet ( talk) 08:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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? N419 BH 07:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
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! Derild 49 21 Review Me! 16:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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. N419 BH 20:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A question about you: why are you badgering me? Lunalet ( talk) 08:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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? N419 BH 07:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
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! Derild 49 21 Review Me! 16:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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. N419 BH 20:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)