User talk:Kilo-Lima/Archives/Archive V

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. Please direct comments to the current and active talk page.

Sorry

...see User Talk:Daniel.Bryant#RE: Happy Birthday. Killfest2 ^(Talk) 11:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday here is a cake from all of us! Happy Birthday and Editing Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 17:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. I looked at the wrong month lol, I thought it said July (God this is Embarrassing), oh well, At least I'm not late! Enjoy the cake anyways! Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A speical Cake for a special person. Enjoy Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 17:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol thats right! lol Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

At least it's not only me doing that... Killfest2|Daniel.Bryant ^(Talk) 01:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pages listed on Categories for deletion

Discussion on CFD - proposal to merge all subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies up into the main cat. Relevant categories which would be deleted are:

• Cat:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Aberdeen constituencies
• Cat:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Dundee constituencies
• Cat:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Edinburgh constituencies
• Cat:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Fife constituencies
• Cat:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Glasgow constituencies
• Cat:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Highland constituencies
• Cat:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Orkney and Shetland
• Cat:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Paisley constituencies
• Cat:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Stirling constituencies

I think that this is a rather important discussion for editors interested in Scotland-related articles, especially Scottish politics and Scottish biographical articles (particularly local history). Please have a read and ponder, and contribute to the debate if you like. Thanks. --Mais oui! 17:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It would also be relevant in this context to consider the discussions in the parent category for the UK parliament: Category talk:British MPs. I find it regrettable that Mais oui! has engaged in a restructuring of that category without entering into the discussions there. --BrownHairedGirl 17:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_23#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_Scottish_constituencies is just about to close. I would really appreciate your contribution, because this debate needs some serious input. --Mais oui! 09:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Penis hostile editor

Hi, I just noticed User:205.188.116.133's edit summary threatening to blow up other editor(s) houses, reverted (evidently at the same time as you), and reported it at AN/I because I've rarely seen such shocking behaviour. Afterwards, I went to the user's talk page to explain why, and saw that you'd already blocked him. Strictly speaking, I guess I should remove the notice on AN/I, since the problem's solved, but my feeling is that the problem needs discussion, especially as it's the AOL proxy problem. What do you think? Jakew 19:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Thank you. It was undoubtedly a bad faith nomination, but as an interested party, I could do nothing about it other than hope a reasonable administrator would investigate the evidence for what it was. My hopes were fulfilled; thank you! -- Avi 14:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So what action are you taking re: User:SkipSmith, who is not blocked as of now? - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Just spotted the discussion down here, so I'm moving my comments from above. I can assure you my suspicions about the sockpuppetry were not in bad faith. I thought I did a good job of documenting my concerns, but if you like I can go back and clarify, if only to reassure everyone I didn't invent the accusation out of whole cloth. I'm a little troubled that the case was dismissed without even looking into it, but I'm willing to let it go.

On a related note, in the case of sock/meat puppetry against me one of my work IP addresses was identified as a "sock puppet" and blocked, even though I clearly identified myself in the post. I didn't see that Avraham had included it in his long list of suspected sock puppets (which appears to consist of everyone who's disagreed with him on the article Actuarial Outpost). It looks like there was a rush to judgement here --- I was identified as the "bad guy" with only minimal (and sloppy) investigation. SkipSmith 00:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Father's Wish

Hello. I have seen the investigation that you filed under Wikipedia:Abuse reports/Father's Wish. I'd like to reorganize it a bit and add some information to it that I think would assist the contactor, if you wouldn't mind. But I don't want to barge in and stick my nose into your projects so I thought I'd ask first. Thanks. Neil916 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please unprotect the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Father's Wish page? The user in question is claiming that he is not Father's Wish, and I'd rather allow him to speak in his defense on that page rather than clutter up the abuse page. Neil916 00:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked into the Father's Wish sockpuppet case and I don't believe that we're looking at the same user. I have posted my reasons on the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Father's Wish page. Neil916 00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Davy Jones

All set! With a copyedit to boot :) Judgesurreal777 18:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh War

Hi, can you specifically tell me what's wrong with the article's manual of styling? (by the way I added citations to all the statistics you mentioned). Regards, --MarshallBagramyan 00:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Much obliged, thank you. --MarshallBagramyan 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from Yanksox

Hey, Kilo-Lima/Archives/Archive V, thanks for supporting my RfA, with a tally of 104/4/7... I am now an admin!!! I was and still am very flattered by all the kind comments that I recieved, I will also take into account the comments about how I could improve. I guarantee I will try my best to further assist Wikipedia with the mop. Feel free to drop in and say hi or if you need anything. Again, thank you so much! Yanksox 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm somewhat annoyed now

I never actually submitted the article USA PATRIOT Act, Title II for GA status, but I am somewhat annoyed that it failed with no explanation. Why did it fail? I put a considerable amount of time and effort into it, and I can't find out why it is seen as a (seemingly) miserable failure.

Not terribly encouraging, I must say. I though GA were there for encouragement. If this is the way that people are going about things, I'm less than impressed. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for missing this, no apologies for you missing Wikipedia:Summary style. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wickethewok's RFA

Thanks for your support on my RFA. The final vote count was (61/9/3), so I am now an administrator. Feel free to let me know how I'm doing at any point in time or if you need anything. Once again, thank you. Wickethewok 16:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 31st

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox

Hi, Kilo-Lima. I have seen you have blocked User:Skanking as a sockpuppet of SqueakBox. That means SqueakBox has not respected the ArbCom's decision banning him from editing the Wikipedia for a month and the article José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero for a year. (See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SqueakBox and Zapatancas). In my opinion that is unfair as I had (and have) to respect it. Should not be SqueakBox's ban reimposed as he did not obey it the first time? Should not he be banned additionaly for having edited the Zapatero article? Could not you block him if it is necessary :-)? Thank you Zapatancas 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Esaborio

Would it be a good idea to note Esaborio's block on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair#Documentation of bans? I've noticed in similar situations in the past that sock puppet blocks/bans are often listed on the puppetmaster's arbitration. TomTheHand 16:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Esaborio is now logged on anonymously using IP 201.199.77.202. This is the IP he used to edit articles last week to avoid a 3RR block, and today he used it to revert the sockpuppet notice off of his user page. TomTheHand 17:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know this. I have added it to the logs. I have also blocked the IP because of obvious reasons. Thanks for the heads up! Iolakana|^T 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Esaborio is back with a new user name, User:Varese Sarabande. He's freely admitting it and signing posts as Esaborio. Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Copperchair (2nd)? Thank you! TomTheHand 17:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User has been blocked. Thanks again, Iolakana|^T 18:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Union Pacific Railroad

Dear Kilo:

I see you've already reviewed and failed this GA nom. The listing still appears on the GA nom page. Did you want me to remove these entries and mark them failed for you if I notice them? I'm hoping to be somewhat active in the GA project, so I really don't mind. I just want to be be sure such is OK with you before I do it. I don't like irritating hard working wikipedians! 8-) --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. Do you want me to alert you in the future or just take care of it without a fuss? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is bound to happen to me, too. So, if you notice one that I do, remove it too. Bob --CTSWyneken^(talk) 23:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken^(talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Geography of Texas

Hey, I've fixed the concerns to the best of my ability, please take a look. Thnx :) Joe I 02:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland

The Scotland article has just been put up for Wikipedia:Peer review. This is a crucial step in getting this article up to WP:FA status, or at least closer to it, which can only have positive effects on all of Wikipedia's Scotland-related coverage. The best way to get the most out of peer review is to monitor for any comments made and try to respond to them promptly. I hope that you may have some possibility to assist in this task? Thanks. --Mais oui! 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

VaughanWatch socks

Hello. I see you have closed off Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VaughanWatch. Most of the users have been blocked indefinitely. However, JohnnyCanuck is the one user that I believe is still outstanding. A previous CheckUser request noted him as a likely sock. No evidence has been given that he is not a sock. What is your opinion on this matter? These sockpuppets have been quite disruptive. So, I would like to continue this until it is confirmed that he is not part of the sock farm or block him indefinitely. -- JamesTeterenko 20:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with James, the status of User:JohnnyCanuck is still very much in question. -- pm_shef 04:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I added a bit of explanation to the bottom of that page. -- pm_shef 15:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There is now an RCU to help clarify this. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VaughanWatch. Hopefully that will have a conclusive result. -- JamesTeterenko 17:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Resolution of Sockpuppet Case?

Hi, I see that Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/64.7.136.166 has been archived, but there is no notice of what decision or action was taken in this case. Do you have any information on this? Thanks. SkipSmith 01:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just seen the update on my talk page --- thanks! SkipSmith 06:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Google-hallowe-en.PNG listed for deletion

Please explain...

Hello Kilo-Lima, I am quite confused here and I would love you give the community a bit of explanation about your action in the following wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife - You haven't even checked any of those links that I have posted earlier and you just erased them. BCNviajero checked just 1 or 2 and then he decided to erase them and keep some others which I cosider complitely useless for this page. Two examples? Cabildo de Tenerife the Tenerife Island Governing Council and the Boroughs Directory. Why I think they are useless? EASY: even if they provide useful information they are in SPANISH. Sorry Kilo-Lima but this is a english page and people who visit this page supposely know English and not Spanish. I would not even say a word if those 2 links were in the Spanish page. They are useful but here they are not targeted to the right people. Easy and simple.

Now, as you delete things I would love you to give the community a reason behind the act. I am also a Greenpeace and Wikipedia supporter and I would like to hear your voice.

The reason why I post things is because I think people would benefit in some way. I am not here to bother, but to share. I like those links and I have used them in the past. I believe they are helphfull to the average visitor like me.

Please let me know and thanks. Roberto

Roto X was not copyrighted

A recent deletetion of the entry RotoX has caused quite a stir. The article was not in violation of the game's copyright. I have personally spoken with the copyright owner, and he had no problem with the entry. He was actually quite surprised when he found the page deleted. I hope we can clear this misunderstanding.

Mctom987

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Pre-script: we are currently undergoing peer review, see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland.

I am beginning to think that the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board is not the best vehicle for pushing up the quality of the Scotland article (we ought to try to get it to WP:FA, in order to get into Wikipedia:Version 0.5, or, failing that, Wikipedia:Version 1.0), and the other key Scottish articles. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that we really ought to start up the long-mooted WikiProject Scotland.

Most of the stuff at the notice board (at least on the bottom half) is actually WikiProject material anyway, and the Talk page is really being used as a WikiProject talk already! The notice board should be just that: for bunging up brief notices and signposts. I am thinking of launching a Wikiproject and correspondingly radically clearing out, and chopping down, the noticeboard (a re-launch if you like). The Scotland Portal concept is fine (but currently mediocre/undynamic content), but in stasis: it needs a good kick up the jacksie.

For comparison, have a look at:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia
• Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong
• etc.

And, if you are at a loose end, have a look at:

• Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Nominations
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPPlaces
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medieval Scotland articles by quality
• Wikipedia:WikiProject
• Wikipedia:WikiProject/Best practices

Thoughts? Please express them here. --Mais oui! 18:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You've got a Thank you card!

Blair witch project

Merged the cast section, so it should be all set! :) Judgesurreal777 16:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 7th

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering...

Hello Kilo-Lima, it is funny that to erase things it takes 1 millisecond, but to give a short explanation it takes forever.

I am sure that you are busy but once again, I would truly appreciate if you could take just 1 minute of your time to answer to my previous message. As you are helping wikipedia, I am trying to do the same. In this case we have different openions, I explained my point of view. It would be nice that you express your point of view too.

You are an administrator and I am glad you are so you can give me and wiki community an short explanation. Thanks very much and hope to get your answer as fast as you erased the links I was proposing in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife Have a nice day Roberto

PS. By the way... I saw that somebody has already inserted one of the links I was trying to post and that you erased. You see, I am not the only one who thinks that those links were useful for the community.

Blair witch project

Article all set! And copyedited too! Judgesurreal777 16:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sludge

Hello. I have honored an unblock request from User:Sludge. It looks to me like the user got caught in the Joe Francis vandalism reverts and perhaps was careless during various counter reverts, but was acting in good faith. I looked at a sample of their earlier edit history and didn't see evidence they were a vandal or sock. I didn't see they deserved an indefinite block. Perhaps I missed something important; if so, please give pointers to relevent edit(s) on User talk:Sludge. As of now, I'm assuming you made a good faith mistake in the indefinite block, as the user appeared to be one of the Joe Francis vandals from a causal view. Please feel free to discuss here or on my own talk page if you believe I've acted in error. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 19:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine. Iolakana|^T 16:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockery

I guess it's a rather thankless task keeping up with the sock-Puppetry investigation page. Just thought I'd let you know that I think you're doing some good work there, regretably without much in the way of support. Regards ALR 12:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Greek -OhmyΩ

Hi Kilo-Lima,

Sorry about the bottom of the page thing, I forgot about it. Thanks 4 the Greek Wiki, last time I checked, there was no Greek Wiki :-(

User SqueakBox

I saw your warnings on User talk:SqueakBox. Can you please have a look at his activity on, primarily, Pedro Carmona, but also List of Presidents of Venezuela? In spite of numerous reliable sources which document that Pedro Carmona was President of Venezuela (albeit, briefly), SqueakBox constantly reverts long-standing articles and inserts original research (his view that Carmona was never President). Thanks, Sandy 22:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

And, now he's accusing me of false claims, and reverting my talk page warnings about vandalizing articles by deleting referenced content. I've given the references, and there are legions more on any news source. He is deleting referenced content, and inserting original research. Considering his past history of edit warring and personal attacks, I'd best avoid these articles until something can be done about his editing style. Further, an anon keeps agreeing with him, and he keeps referring to the anon. Sandy 00:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Kilo-Lima, I don't know what to do next. SqueakBox is violating WP:BLP by inserting original research, claiming that Carmona "was the leader of a coup". WP:BLP says violations are to be aggressively removed and are exempt from 3RR, but I do not want to get into an edit war with an editor who has a history of edit warring and personal attacks. Sandy 01:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Said anon is from Holland. There are also several otyher editors who agree with me on this and only Sandy and you promoting the Carmona was President thesis. Before accusing me of adding false information why not pitch in as an editor on that talk page (which you personally cannot now block me for editing as that would be a conflict of interests), SqueakBox 18:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible new sock for Kmaguir1

Greetings. Please see the new sock name and behavior. I've added the possible sock to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kmaguir1#Kmaguir1. Thanks! --Anthony Krupp 13:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. I wanted to ask about a possible block on Kmaguir1 himself. If you're inclined, visit the talk page of Judith Butler to see his disruptions to make a point, total ignoring of the process of consensus, etc. It would be good to have a neutral admin look at this history. (I've tried to work with him, and even with his 'good hand' sockpuppet, but he refuses to obey the rules or play well with others.) Thanks,--Anthony Krupp 16:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

More Kmaguir1 issues

Does blanking messages left on his userpage count as vandalism? I think it must, no? And what I left there was very respectful. Thanks,--Anthony Krupp 17:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/AI

You wrote, "User has been blocked." at the bottom of the page, but the block log for ESL244 (talk • contribs • logs) doesn't appear to register any blocks. I already know that AI and Nikitchenko were indefinitely blocked, the question is whether ESL244 is improperly acting as a sockpuppet of AI or some other user. The person has engaged in some very suspicious debate on the Barbara Schwarz discussion page, and they appear to have a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policies that are not typical of people that are new to Wikipedia as this person purports to be. Thanks for your time and consideration. Vivaldi (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: My user page

You are welcome. :) Jacek Kendysz 12:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

User:The Archer

Hey -- this user is requesting unblocking; you blocked The Archer indefinitely as a sockpuppet of NCC17 (in the AC/DC edit war situation). It's somewhat unusual for a sockpuppet to request unblocking; I looked into this situation, and I don't think The Archer is a sockpuppet; they did mysteriously come out of lurking for the poll, but they were an editor of AC/DC, and more interestingly, their previous edits were from December 2005, a full 5 months before NCC17 started editing. The other sockpuppets in the case were newly created. What do you think? Mangojuice^talk 15:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The user has been unblocked. Thanks for checking that out. Iolakana|^T 19:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My thanks go to Mangojuice for realizing the truth and speaking out. I'd like to say that Kilo-Lima could have done better by examining the facts carefully before having blocked me.The Archer 22:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

August Esperanza Newsletter

Blocked editor

Hi KL! User:Kmaguir1 is complaining long and loud about injustice etc after their recent 10 day block for sock abuse. I have declined to unblock, but offered to ask the blocking admin (you!) to review the length of the block. I do this without prejudice on the length you gave, and most certainly in agreement with the block itself as a warning about edit patterns of the user in question. It's up to you what you do - I'm just following through on my promise! Feel free to ignore me :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we have an additional Kmaguir1 sockpuppet: MindMoves (talk · contribs). This new user made a few edits (that look reasonable enough) to Edward Armitage, then within a few hours of registering made one of the changes Kmaguir1 had been pushing on Judith Butler. LotLE×talk 01:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, User:Truthseekers has filed an appeal with the unblock-en-l mailing list. Per the appeal and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kmaguir1 it appears to me to be highly likely that these accounts are in fact distinct individuals who meatpuppeted to some degree, and not sockpuppets. Indef blocking someone who admittedly meatpuppeted but also wants to edit independently is somewhat excessive IMHO.

Would you consider a review of the block? Given that they cooperated on some 3RR stuff, it might be wise to warn them that they're going to be lumped together for 3RR purposes on articles they edit together, but an indef ban seems excessive to me.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WP policy ( WP:MEAT section of WP:SOCK ) does not treat meatpuppets identically to socks; abusive socks are indefinitely blocked. Meatpuppets, which are aligned single-purpose accounts, are treated the same way. An account whose owner is aligned, and did some single-purpose acts but wishes to contribute outside that single purpose, doesn't fall into the same automatic treatment regime.

Both of them have admitted what they did, state that they understand the policy now and will abide by it (if unblocked, in Truthseekers case), and are sorry. WP:AGF seems to indicate that we should give them some benefit of the doubt.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 18:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Archer (talk · contribs)

I've given them an unblock, citing AGF and lack of a CU. Please let me know if that's ok, it looked clean to me -- Tawker 00:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 14th

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cybertrend Sockpuppetry

Sorry for not doing this properly; this is my first time. Cybertrend is very likely the same person as Scuzzler, and possibly the same as Franklyn2, 24.196.167.62, 24.196.167.104, and some other anonymous IPs.

Help with problems

I webhosted a website that was seen all over news channels in the USA for a very famous missing kidnapped and then murdered girl. I presented all of my evidence for her page with supporting links from CNN. The page has remained unchanged for months, almost a year. Now a person comes along and starts removing things from the page that are very important to the page and the case. He then calls me a sockpuppet and uses my ip address i used to use BEFORE i signed up to get a username to get some moronic idiotic admin (sound familiar here?) to try and ban me for being a sock puppet. You banned a guy that signed up for a username because he was asked by an admin to do get one, now you ban me and call me a sock puppet?

You without reason then list the reason as vandilism, well fook me, im sorry, i just webhosted the girls site, did interviews on national tv about her, i think i know what the hell is going on with the news story here instead of a jealous pissed off person who has routinley spammed and defaced her page on wikipedia. you need stripped of your job as you sure as fook can't do it correctly WorkingHard 18:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who pointed out WorkingHard's sock puppetry. Its interesting that hes complaining - he says he was using his ip before signing up for an account but anyone who looks at his WorkingHard account will see hes had it for some time now. His actions speak for themselves and instead of following Wiki protocol keeps erasing the sockpuppetry messages on his user page and has called me and the mods offensive names. If you can do a "check user" I'm sure you will see that WorkingHard has had many other sockpuppets here as well.

Regarding the page for Jessica Lunsford, its pretty sick that he is so insistent on getting credit for hosting a website for a missing girl. He also falsely says that the site was rated as a most visited one but offers no links to back this up probably because there is no truth to this.Cumberbund 21:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)