User talk:ExplicitImplicity/Archive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Replying to your message - they keep deleting cited material. I will let them keep theirs, I expect them to leave mine. Stick to the Facts 21:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] sock/meat puppetry
You have been reported for suspected sock/meat puppetry. Stick to the Facts 05:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
WTF ?--ExplicitImplicity 18:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Recriting others to post for you also qualifies. I believe that is what is called a meat puppet. Read the guidelines more closely. The evidence has been presented. Stick to the Facts 18:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The evidence againt you all is presented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Poison_sf#Poison_sf Stick to the Facts 18:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL. You call that evidence ?--ExplicitImplicity 19:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
If it isn't convincing, what are you worried about? People will make up their own minds after reviewing the evidence. Stick to the Facts 20:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not worried at all. But thanks for the patronizing.--ExplicitImplicity 20:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Posted on the Stormfront RfC for Poison sf et al in rebuttal to your last message:
I meant that your first edit of a wikipedia article was to Stormfront's article. That you state that you created this account on September 11, 2006 and have been using wikipedia for four years appears to be an outright admission that you are a sockpuppet of SOMEBODY. Please refer to wikipedia policy on sock puppetry. This violates the one editor one account rule. Let it be so noted. Stick to the Facts 20:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Stick to the Facts 20:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Tell it to the judge. Stick to the Facts 14:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Why are you so concerned about an account you just opened a few days ago? o.O Stick to the Facts 15:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The bit about assuming good faith does not attribute to flagrant violations where the evidence is plain on its face. Look at the link to the Stormfront forum. Don't deny there was a 'conspiracy', it is a given. The next question is - which of the recent editors were involved? I think you might just be hostile because you're afraid of losing both this account and poison sf. Stick to the Facts 15:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You said:
- "Hi Stick_to_the_facts. UberCyrix didn't say hi to me, as we don't know each other. But you won't believe me. But in case you haven't noticed: Your checkuser was accepted and answered: UNRELATED. [1] Does that change your belief about us sockpuppeteering in any way or form? Am in now "innocent" and "have nothing to lose" in your eyes? I would be pleasantly surprised. Greetings.-- ExpImptalk con 00:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)"
Hmmm, so if you don't know him, and he didn't say hi to you, then how exactly did you know that I asked him to say hi in the first place unless you are the same person? LOL BUSTED!!! The RfCU is being reexamined and I'll be sure to share this anecdote as proof. LOLZ!!!! Stick to the Facts 02:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I just don't get it - if you were only replying to an RfC then why are you still so interested? Don't you have other more interesting things you could be doing? Stick to the Facts 14:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I just think it is strange that someone who was just responding to an RfC would get so caught up in it and keep posting - it is clear why I'm still here, I created an account for the first time just to combat the injustice of this article. What's your reason? Stick to the Facts 21:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
