Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:35, 7 July 2010

• Please replace {{Misplaced Pages:WikiOgre/topicon}} with {{WikiOgre}}

Archives

April 2009 to present

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

bubble tea

DocOfSoc (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

So nice, we said it twice

What I thought was so amusing about it was that not just you, but also another editor did the same thing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to f@$kin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how?" ;P Doc9871 (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... you talking to me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? Oh yeah? OK." Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and also §. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

you are not welcome on my talk page

bzzt. don't assume whom I was quoting. Jack Merridew 10:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad. Couldn't have possibli been that episode. I mean, possibly. That's the first thing that's ever gone wrong... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet issue

Hi, I just got a note that my IP (71.171.109.42) is accused of being an apparently banned user, Skagit-something or other. In any case, I can assure you am me and not that person, and that I've got a long history here (though I disappeared for a while) that can be verified. --み使い Mitsukai 00:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If I was in error, please feel free to remove the tag from your Userpage - the Talkpage entry could be kept as a record if you chose to do so. I really only corrected the original tag - wasn't my call to begin with, but, again, please remove the tag from your Userpage at your leisure. Happy editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(I removed another rude edit from her that she posted here.) I hope it's ok. --CrohnieGal 21:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Hi, check out Wildhartlivie's talk page. She is now retired so I guess everything is done. The RFC just became useless as far as I'm concerned. They wanted her gone, and now she is. I wonder who the next victim is going to be. Also look at my history of my talk page for a lovely, not, comment from Skagit. She of course used a roamng IP to attack again. I deleted it which is why you need to look in history. I am real sick of all of this to be honest and I am done with it. --CrohnieGal 20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Doc, SkagitRiverQueen left a rude message so I deleted it. You can find it in your history if you are interested. I marked the IP too. Also, I'm trying to see if she can be stopped so I posted here to ask. If you or any of your lurkers care to comment feel free. I hope it was ok to delete from your talk page. Take care, --CrohnieGal 21:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've re-marked the IP's: I find it better to use this for the talk page (then sign it), then create and tag the user page with the one you used. Cheers, Crohnie ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal?

Yep Doc! But I a in SUPERB company! ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The banned and "indeffed" SRQ is undoubtedly still at it. These "redhead" comments are slightly disturbing - "ginger-bashing" at the very best? ;P I would like to create the category "Confirmed Sockpuppets of SkagitRiverQueen", but I don't know exactly which IP's that can be proved through behavior (since the list keeps growing). I think 99% of them, but that's just me. Sabra2 and UrbanCowboy12 for sure - can I add the appropriate templates to the obvious IP's? It's all academic at this point, but it should be noted, as the socking has not stopped... Doc9871 (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:OUTING? Not in the slightest! Try this on for size: "Before I do anything drastically redheaded ;-)" -> (refactored ),(from your own talk page DummyDoc9871) on 2 June 2010 at 21:32. LOL! Yep! Idiots, complete idiots! <|8~P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.160.120.56 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hypocritically socking after filing those weak SPI's against WHL - that's not too smart. We may be "idiots, complete idiots", but we don't have to resort to what you're doing to edit here. Some people handle rejection better than others. Happy trails, Skag... Doc9871 (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see the conversation here. This is the preferred way to handle stinky socks like this which you know. Right now it does no good talk to her. She is just the usual troll and you need to delete her not encourage this behavior, please. It's offensive and you know it is. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 10:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

She's clearly not going to stop socking, and erasing her posts to my talk page isn't going to discourage her from doing so - I do appreciate your concerns, however. Finding her socks and having them "dealt" with has become a small hobby for me now - she knows very well we can't block all the Verizon IP's, and she is using this to her "advantage". We can, however, easily use her obvious behavioral pattern to tag 'em (and bag 'em where possible). Cheers, Crohnie :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok fair enough but let's not let her break policies like outing since the editor has made it clear she no longer wants to be called by that name. I did refactor that part out. I wish she would just get bored. Oh well, I guess she enjoys being a useless sock these days and after all the crap she said about socks in the past, what a hypocrite she is. LOL! --CrohnieGal 12:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A banned editor cannot break policy when they've lost their right to edit here in the first place. I fully agree with WP:DENY - but I erase nothing from my talk page, and I truly encourage her responses here (for additional behavioral evidence). Cheers, Crohnie :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok if that's how you want it I will honor your wishes. Please refactor anything like the outing she did above ok? That wouldn make me happy I guess.

Another one to tag and bag!

Hi, here's another on for you to tag here. Happy trails, --CrohnieGal 22:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OK

Um, thanks for chiming in, I guess. Are you familiar with that guy's history? I looked it up, a bit. The man's a nasty piece of work, and he appears to enjoy bullying other editors. He's been doing it for years. He'll continue to do it. Behavior like that does drive off editors, I'm sure. Does that not bother you? It bothers me. I could have been the one to finally stop him, maybe. I spit the bit. Why shouldn't I feel guilty about that? Herostratus (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you giving up seemingly because of this failed report? You're sounding bitter about it, and that's not going to help anything. He can't make you quit - he's just another editor. I'll familiarize myself with his history, but the WQA was closed: to have to have the last word is therefore pointless. There are always other battles out there: that's all I'm saying. Cheers, Herostratus, and happy editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"The man's a nasty piece of work, and he appears to enjoy bullying other editors." Really? In which alternate universe does that not come under the heading of a personal attack? Malleus Fatuorum 10:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Hey, I didn't say it: and I really can't argue with your logic there at all. That thread really needed to be closed - I'll bet there will be another one around the corner, however. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you did say it; I was only replying here because this is where Herostratus said it. I expect there will be other WQA reports, but c'est la vie here on wikipedia. I don't know how far you've got in investigating my nasty history, but have you noticed that I've never initiated a WQA against another editor? Do you believe that's because everyone has been unfailingly polite to me during my four years here? I can assure you it's not. Malleus Fatuorum 10:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not planning on deeply investigating your history - you should note that I've agreed with your position on that particular thread. I'd rather go after disruptive socks than a 4-year vet with almost 80,000 edits: too much work to go through your past! ;P Cheers, Malleus! :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the civility police aren't here to see it, it's like a tree falling over when no one's around. Quite frankly it seems that Herosdtratus is doing a good job himself of bullying other editors. Nev1 (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Your suspicions are wrong

You wrote:

I think you're a single-purpose account sock, 205.250.67.46. Care to "fess up"? You know way, way too much to be a user that just started editing yesterday, and your sole focus is clear. What are your other accounts, please? Doc9871 (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Your suspicions are poorly founded and wrong. It is most disturbing that, in the face of yet another instance of Miesianiacal's habitual edit-warring, rather than showing concern about that misbehaviour of his, you throw these sorts of accusations about, in his support. -- 205.250.67.46 (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not supporting his behavior - that's irrelevant, as I'm uninvolved until now. You are clearly not a new user: are you telling me that you are? You seem to be quite familiar with this editor, and you're quite concerned about him, obviously. What other accounts have you used? A simple question, really... Doc9871 (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like support to me. However, there is no sock-puppet issue connected with me. In particular, I have no connection with the Mr. (or Ms.) 65.xx... You've neither need nor entitlement to know more about me than that, and if you think I'm going to submit to your rude interrogation then you must think again. -- 205.250.67.46 (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A typical response. Not even an, "I've been editing as an IP for years but haven't bothered registering"? How did you know about "POV editorialising" for your very first edit? Quack! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Two other IPs he's known to have used are 205.250.66.41 (talk · contribs) and 205.250.72.1 (talk · contribs). I suspect, though, he's edited here before using those addresses. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Declining my request for protection.

I am still very upset re: the uncivil treat ment I got night before last from the Kiwi. Not only was she biting the newcomer in this venue her remarks were based on the fact that she(?) did not review the article properly as I stated. The more I thinnk about it, the more redheaded i get. With very little effort in reviewing the article, after the block was removed, the following two edits were made:

"latest news...recent evidence released on ryan secrest having sex with a transgendered woman!

This was on ONE day following the lift of block. Is there any recourse? Despite her cries, she obviously only took a cursory look and referred to edits I was not even talking about! What now, I defer to yo # 1 Doc. I have actually lost sleep over this, injustice tends to do that to me! DocOfSoc (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC) if she had actually READ the article she would have found:

• For Teh Lulz as Himself
• How I Impregnated Eric Bauman as Himself

which had been missed before.

DocOfSoc (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

More: DocOfSoc (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Beatle Song from Ferris Buellar Parade 0:-)

You said that what I said was not a great idea. The SHE said a very nice comment AND I got an e-mail from you know whom that was super nice, sooo I figgered a clean start was better. Got it Doc #1??  ;-) Fondly....DocOfSoc (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)