User talk:The Number

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

In conclusion

I care not whether people believe me. If I was so desperate to achieve the cyber-adulation then I'd simply use another ID. In the end it's not what other believe, or what they 'think' that matters. If you have self-respect (which I have) then there is no need to write to gain some sort of 'bonding' with other, similarly challenged, Editors. I glanced at one 'fabricating quotations' and if the others are of the same ilk then they're all just one big fantasy of yours.

You fabricated the last portion of your quote in that edit, as it does not appear in the article you cite. I'm actually surprised you did it, because it's the baldest bad-faith edit you've made so far: usually they're cloaked in plausible deniability. Saxifrage | ☎ 02:53, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)]
I can see how you make your mistake. The problem is - as you yourself admit - is that you've become so biased that you immediately accuse without for one moment thinking there may be a reason behind what looks like a fabrication. Let me explain. You say that the quotation does not appear in the article sourced. The article is a NEWS article and thus likely to change. The quotation DID appear in the article WHEN I sourced it but it does not appear now. Therefore the responsible editor should make that amendment rather than immediately accuse the oriiginal editor of a fabrication. To fully support my point I suggest you look [1] and you'll see the exact same article is repeated in its entirety with the quotation I extracted. That is not the article as it NOW stands but it WAS the article as it stood when I quoted. You made a mistake - that happens to all of us, but the difference is that you have automatically assumed bad faith and that Saxifrage is your weakness, not mine. The Number 11:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That explains it. As I said, I was surprised by such a bald edit, and now I can see why my surprise was justified. I apologise, then, for jumping to the conclusion that you fabricated it. Of course, were you an editor of esteem rather than a plague upon Wikipedia, such a conclusion would have not been surprising, but unbelievable. So, you see how you damage yourself with your antisocial behaviour. Have you heard the story The Boy Who Cried "Wolf"?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 16:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Your apology is graciously accepted without a shred of triumphalism. I too was surprised - very surprised - when, on following your link it did indeed look like a fabrication. It took some investigative work to find the cause. And even more to find the proof. Regarding the 'plague' comment. I have always maintained - rightly or wrongly - that most of my posts have been in response to Wyss. That's not an excuse, but it is a reason. Likewise I suspect many posts aimed at me have been because of Sollog (i.e. Sollog's appearance and then the mistaken belief that I was Sollog) You may, of course, choose to correct me on that. I have decided to 'rename' myself as advised by...I dunno, probably everyone. One final point, I am 99.99999% certain that Sollogfan's password is not mine it would indeed be a very very unhappy coincidence if it was! So, I shall not 'leave' you, merely re-invent. When I have done what I consider to be a responsible 'edit' on an article I'll let you know on your Talk Page. If you haven't already I'll look forward to you deleting or at least modifying the 'fabrication' comment and informing whoever you see fit. I have heard of the story you mention. Also I have read [2] - have you?I thank you for your time. The Number 17:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wonderful. You may wish to state your intention to change accounts at the RfC, as that was suggested as, and would be considered as, a proper resolution. Don't feel a need to inform me of positive contributions you make in the future on my Talk page, as I'm not really interested: if you're being a successful positive contributor, my interest in you is at an end, because, as you said, my concern should be the content of an edit, not its author. However, if you are a negative influence in any articles which I watch, I'm sure to notice and recognise you in time. Either way, you needn't inform me and I'll only be involved with you further if you are a detriment to the parts of the encyclopedia I am involved with or if we end up collaborating on a particular article.
Actually, let me make that stronger: please do not inform me, as I can conceive of no good reason for you to do so, given what my view on the matter is, which I've just described. Insisting on calling edits to my attention will merely make me suspicious of your motives for doing so, and I hope you'd avoid doing anything so counter-productive with your new account.
I have removed the reference you speak of above from my Userwatch page, but I will continue to monitor contributions made by this account. You see, I don't have any reason to trust your word yet.
Good luck, and goodbye.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:05, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Your email

Yes, I did get your email, and read it. Thank you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You could look at it that way. I beg to differ. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please don't harass other editors about your Sollogfan sockpuppet account.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 18:30, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)


Accuracy

Saxifrage has made an inaccurate statement here by saying Sollogfan is my sockpuppet account. Saxifrage has also made a (deliberately?) misleading comment on the Sollog page about Sollogfan and the (lack of action) by an Editor. Saxifrage has in fact identifieid the wrong Editor. The Number 08:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Your memory is short, but that's understandable with all the trouble you have on your hands. Both Sweep and Sidaway told you to stop vandalising other user's pages, but the editor to whom you referred when claiming people were ignoring their warnings about being blocked was Sweep. Sidaway had yet to enter the fray when you started misrepresenting Sweep's comment in edit summaries. By the way, you should really put your money where your mouth is and abandon this account in favour of whatever other accout you decided to switch to—you just keep providing more circumstantial evidence that you are Sollog(fan).  — Saxifrage | ☎ 17:50, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
This has become almost childishly simple. I guess ego has truly replaced intellect. I appeal, probably pointlessly, to the facts:

1. I quote: Please do not be flippant about this. It was a serious question as on my page - which is repeatedly been vandalised - an editor has posted that vandals will be blocked. I am therefore asking that as Pomeroy and Kafir ignore editors, whether they will now be blocked in other words is it all bluster or are editors serious? Sollogfan 09:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note the date: 29 April.

Analysis: Sollogfan is asking why shouldn't Pomeroy and Kafir be blocked. Sollogfan says: 'An Editor has posted that vandals will be blocked'.

I quote: "Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

Note the date: 25 April.

Therefore the reference was to 'blocking' and the person who wrote - impotently - about blocking was Tony Sidaway


2. Saxifrage wrote: "...Both Sweep and Sidaway told you to stop vandalising other user's pages"

Analysis: the reference by Sollogfan was to blocking and thus, looking at the dates, it was to Sidaway.

Looking at later posts it is clear that Sidaway was receiving emails (from me, actually) reminding him of his hypocrisy.

Oh dear. Can't have that can we? An Editor treminded of his threats and then reminded again when he totally failed to carry them out because the institutionalised vandals i.e. Pomeroy et alle, continue.

All right, I'll grant you that I should have said Sidaway when I reminded you that you are an impotent puppet that should go away. However, you're splitting a hair that is 1) pointless, and 2) so thin that it doesn't matter. Further, you're still misrepresenting both Sweep and Sidaway's warnings as being directed at those who were rightfully maintaining a Sollog Sockpuppet notice on Sollogfan's page, in deliberate disregard of the fact that the warnings were directed at you/Sollogfan. Those actions mean that you are either incapable of common standards of communication and human thought, or you are deliberately propagandising. I don't think you're stupid, so that leaves deliberate attempts at misdirection. You're so transparent it would be painful had I a single scrap of sympathy for you any more.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 09:51, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Also: I was NOT told to stop vandalising anywhereby Sidaway and Sweep.The Number 00:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You were being told via your sockpuppet account.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 09:51, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
It really hurts you to admit being wrong doesn't it! All that bluster and denial and eventually you admit you were wrong (again) and then you seek to devalue this by saying it doesn't matter! Oh dear! You know I have no sockpuppet account so that's a mere invention to justify your actions. The Number 15:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
This is what we who study psychology call "projecting". You're seeing your own failings in someone you dislike. Yes, it really does seem to hurt you to admit you're wrong (I'm not saying you're wrong in this case, I was) so much so that you never admit wrongdoing. You abandon conversation threads in which you have lost the argument instead of facing the fact that you can be incorrect. I, on the other hand, can happily admit being wrong and have done so on a number of occassions. Obviously it doesn't hurt me.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:58, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
1) I am not a sockpuppet. I suggest you do not even know what a sockpuppet is - or you deliberately lie.
2) I am not The Number.
I am SOLLOGFANSollogfan 11:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Exactly! The Number 15:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Nope, you're a sockpuppet. You do realise that Sollogfan and The Number are the only people on Wikipedia who have "two-sided" conversations with that kind of conversation flow? You do realise that it's transparent that one person is coreographing both sides? You do realise that you "both" write the same, and that a writing voice is as uniquely identifiable as a fingerprint? No, I suppose you don't, which is why you laughably keep thinking that you're pulling it off and doing a convincing job.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 19:58, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Note, though, the exchange here [3] with Brookie, who actually is a real human being. Presumably the tactic is to create a thick cloud of gas and dust, so that neutral observers entering the discussion become confused and misdirected. For this to work it's doesn't matter if the sockpuppet is plausible - although in this case, the blatancy is a major handicap - merely that neutral parties are misdirected from the evidence. It's the kind of tactic lawyers use a lot, and this kind of behaviour is entirely consistent with that described in the newspaper articles on John Ennis; he fancied himself as a lawyer, but he couldn't be normal. In the short term it might be effective, but it'll fall apart as soon as the mask slips, which it does frequently. Whatever initial gains The Number makes, he simply can't follow through.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I know it's intended as factual smokescreen. The mask slips, I think, because he has ulterior motives that are incompatible with his professed motives—in order to advance the ulterior motives, he must somehow play his hand. In so doing, he overextends his façade and starts appearing "un-normal", saying things that are inconsistent with the professed motives and betraying the existence of those other goals. There's some facinating stuff to study in the area of discourse analysis that deals with implicit meaning and how it is transmitted by variance from expected norms. Interestingly, when in a context where alternative implications that might have been the intended communication don't exist, such variance from expected norms is the same thing that listeners pick up on as indicators of deceit or misdirection. Our special friend is an endless source of these facinating discourses.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 09:21, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully not literally an endless source, though, and he's not really special, there's a large subculture of them at crank.net (for example Archimedes Plutonium, who is also on Wikipedia). Some of them are more amusing than others, including "How I Shrunk My Husband's Crotch" [4] and the classic "God Hates Figs". [5] The Number's notable point of difference is that he doesn't have a fundamental topic, i.e. feminism, racism, hatred of Israel etc. Other than that, it's just a lot of quasi-lawyeristic nonsense.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

All these mental gymnastics simply to try and hide the fact (I prefer facts, not sophistry, not diversions, not false accusations, not brou-ha posts)that Pomeroy has consistently vandalised Sollogfan's page. I know Editors hate it when one of their own, who in the main, contributes responsibly (i.e. to the best of his ability) but occasionally seeks 'creations' (as in cyber-creations) to try and bully. This again gives an insight into Pomeroy - a typist, physically short, prattles on about not wishing to bow, writes/contributes to little books with very esoteric readership, posts about sexual words. In short (no pun) a single, lonely man, I surmise. Seeking the internet as a means of expressions he alights (descends) on Sollogfan's Pages to wilfully and obsessively (as has been said elsewhere) vandalise and then preen himself that none will censor him. Truly, a sad little man. Poor, poor.Ashley Pomeroy . Now, Saxifrage is a different matter. He constantly seeks elevated discussion, littering his edits with grand references to areas such as discourse analysis which poor, lonely Ashley Pomeroywill never visit for fear of not being bale to understand.Saxifrage seeks combat, seeks a duel so that he can then preen himself that he has won (when in fact, of late he seems to make too many mistakes to even be considered a worthwile debating opponent).Whe he makes mistakes he then seeks to change the context so that his error 'does not matter' failing to realise that it is the process of thought that is under discussion not the actual identities involved. It seems reasonable to conclude that Sollog is in jail and yet Ashley Pomeroy no doubt thinks I am he. Undoubtedly Saxifragethinks I am Sollogfan. As I know I am not I merely see his somewhat pseudish edits as 'deductions based on a falsehood'. It is amusing for me, but only infrequently. On the subject of vandalism it is strange how yet again Editors who presumably think they are responsible become beguiled by Pomeroy's vandalism and when Sollogfan retaliates, it is Sollogfan who is blocked.This is indeed a sad community - or at best, a community with a sprinkling of bad apples who, I suspect, dribble with ansticipation as they post from Salisbury - a place that does not even list a Pomeroy as an inhabitant. Such anonymity in real life can only partly be compensated for by being a braggart here. The Number 14:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

None of these are facts until you prove them, which you haven't even attempted to do here. You can call a claim a "fact" until you're blue in the face but it won't magically turn into one with your words. We've had that discussion about proving your so-called facts before and you abandoned it rather than admiting to having no proof. This above is simply rhetoric, which is a tactic that falls under the term sophistry. By the way, your projection is showing yet again, as is your insecurity by your anemic efforts to smear Pomeroy and I.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 20:56, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Ho-ho. Accuracy by omission? The sockpuppets section very logically and rationally disproves the accusation that either I or Sollogfan are sockpuppets of Sollog - a claim repeatedly made by Ashley Pomeroy as a reason to excuse his constant vandalism.The Number 05:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
It does not prove or disprove anything, it merely provides a definition, and only one of the many definitions at that. Take a look at the list of all your sockpuppets—if you really want to be anal about using that definition of sockpuppet, you may pick one of those at random to fit the "main account" slot and all the rest are socks. Either way, your protest amounts to a lousy argument hinging on a bit of creatively-interpreted semantics.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:37, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
As soon as you say 'list of all your sockpuppets' your case is lost for the simple reason that I have no sockpuppets. That inconvenient fact aside I note that yet again you have managed to omit to answer my very logical statement that as Sollog is in jail all this alleged 'sockpuppetry' would be nigh on impossible! The Number 05:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
A fact is a fact irrespective of whether it has been proven to a third party. But, I like facts and I welcome your observation about it being necessary to 'prove before you accuse'. I ask therefore where the PROOF is for the accusation/vandalism that Ashley Pomeroy keeps performing - perhaps as he tries to exorcise his demons.
Sorry, I'm not interested in proving that you're a sockpuppetSaxifrage | ☎


And that says it all. An Editor on Wikipedia who has no interest in the truth. You deleted much of my edit as it simply doesn't fit your increasingly partial edit.The Number 05:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


I notice too that Sollogfan politely asked Ashley Pomeroyto stop - Sollogfan's polite request was quickly reverted. All the hallmarks of (an ultimately impotent) bully.A short one at that. The Number 05:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Sollogfan has been tagged as a sockpuppet and the community consensus is that the tag should stay. A sockpuppet's protest that they're not a sockpuppet is obviously not enough to warrant removing the tag. Userpages are not as sovereign as you seem to think, sorry. You see, if Sollogfan really wanted to clear his name, he would put his userpage up on the Wikipedia:Requests for Comment page and ask people to give their opinion. Note, that doesn't require two signatories (that's only for RfCs against other users, not about pages).  — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:37, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Asking for comment is pointless. In the past I asked Administrators and esteemed Editors to intervene in your (collective) bullying. They do nothing. - except to intervene ot join in. Look at Sidaway!The Number 05:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

None of my post is an attempt to smear you.
Respectfully, that statement is bull excrement. Your attempted smear was against my integrity.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:37, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
How can someone claim to have integrity when they maintain that someone in prison is busy editing here pretending to be in the UK? The Number 05:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Read below about sockpuppets. Suspend all emotion and look at it logically. Has Ashley Pomeroy proved that Sollog (from prison no doubt) is somehow (using my or Sollogfan's identity) editing here? If not then his repeated editing is nothing short of vandalism (personal attack removed) The Number 22:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
More smearing, more evidence that you're insecure in arguing a point without resorting to belittling your detractors. Truly, you are incompetent at this non-sophistry thing.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:37, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Let's see, I am accused of being inseceure and the evidence is I belittle my detractors. You support this by saying I am incompetent. (personal attack removed) The Number 05:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

A sockpuppet is: "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who edits under more than one name. The Wikipedian who uses a sock puppet may be called a sock puppeteer."

On Sollogfan's page this appears:


It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Sollog.
Please refer to [6] for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.


Let's analyse what it says:

"This user may be an abusive sockpuppet of Sollog; see [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saxifrage/Userwatch#Sollog) for evidence"

Now let's follow the link:"Sollogfan (talk) (contribs) — as a sock of The Number's, likely Sollog himself"

So Sollog, in jail apparently, is somehow Editing here on a consistent basis. Let's remember what a sockpuppet is: 'an additional username' thus Sollog is apparently also Sollogfan (who has consistently denied it) and me (I have also denied it). Looking at the evidence we see...none. The spelling are English. The times edits are posted would fit into UK time. The knowledge of sad little Pomeroy seem more likely to have been found by someone in the UK than in US. Plus of course Sollog is apparently in jail. But, hey! let's not bring facts into it! The Number 14:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

And yet again Saxifrage ignores this. Please, don't Edit here unless you can do so without removing chunks of my own text. Please don't edit unless you deal with facts and logic - it lowers the tone otherwise. The Number 05:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Emails

If you wish to mail Sollog in jail:

John Ennis/Sollog 
#500-503-092
MJB 
PO Box 9356 
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33310

You can also include a photo, so Sollog can visualize you in his prayers. The Number 08:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


Whoops! Sollog cannot be in jail after all he's busy running around Wikipedia using a whole lot of sockpuppets!


It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Sollog.
Please refer to [7] for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.


Hahahahahahahahahaha! The Number 05:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

According to Wikipedia:User page, "Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere." As per this policy, I have removed all personal attacks from this page. Gamaliel 07:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I just KNEW that would happen! You allow (by omission) attacks on Sollogfan and then block him. You allow (by omission) attacks on me and when I retaliate...and then you, the person infamous for the 'fucking monkey' post have the cheek to edit!The Number 14:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Just letting you know that I have filed a request for arbitration against you. --MarkSweep 09:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

To be expected. Bans will follow. Ignore the logic that I CANNOT POSSIBLY BE SOLLOG WHO IS IN JAIL and be posting hereThe Number 10:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Query

In simple - VERY simple - terms could someone tell me how to put photos from my hard drive into the pages here? I will then post a photo that proves beyond all doubt that I, the magnificient Number, am not Sollog which will prove that all these editors etc have been talking nonsense. SOLLOG is in jail BTW so is not in the UK! The Number 14:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

In the "toolbox" on the left there, there is a link that says "Upload file". Click that and read the instructions on the page (including the stuff about making sure you're not overwriting an existing file, because you'd get flamed to Jersey and back if you accidentally did that), and then upload the pic. You can include it here by following the instructions on the same page. (Essentially, insert something like [[Image:whatever you called it.jpg]] as its own line in the page.) — Saxifrage | ☎ 08:59, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
"I will then post a photo that proves beyond all doubt that I, the magnificient Number, am not Sollog"
Any time soon? It's been a week. — Saxifrage | ☎ 06:09, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Don't expect a reply soon, or ever: this user has been permanently banned. Check the block log. --MarkSweep 07:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/User_talk%7EThe_Number_570b.html"