User talk:71.108.64.236
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Smile Foundation of Bali and Senang Hati Foundation
Non-notable articles that were closed prematurely by bad-faith administrator. It's not fair that Jack Merridew could get away with nominating as many articles as he wants, yet I get blocked forever just for nominating two.--71.108.64.236 (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Please restore the articles for deletion pages.--71.108.64.236 (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking of bad faith: closing admin might want to check out Wikipedia:ANI#I'm being harassed by my old accountto see that this is a sockpuppeteer address being used for harassment. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Unblock so I could make a different user name, then, and nominate the articles for deletion again.
- By your own admission: [1] [2], you are the same user. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I see what the problem is. Jack Merridew is allowed to delete as many articles as he wants, but when his own non-notable articles are threatened with deletion, he makes up lies about people and gets them blocked forever, so his spam articles remain.
Of course I'm that person. I was blocked for no reason. I didn't do anything wrong.
- No, the problem is creating a single-purpose account, and at that, with the same user's old username, and proceding to nominate the user's article for deletion. It's quite obvious that this user has done something to annoy you in the past; perhaps, if you had done so on your original account (unless that one is blocked too), this wouldn't have been an issue. Do you see what the problem in your actions was? Even in the ridiculously unlikely possibility you never had an account before, the actions were still inappropriate. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have any other account. I see Wikipedia is a very unfair place, where a person can tag and nominate hundreds of articles for deletion, but when another person tries to do it to just two spam articles, they get blocked forever.
- And I see something I often see in sockpuppets: seeing a cabal where none exists, and, when confronted with their actions, always pretending like the fact that they're sockpuppeteers makes no difference. You know as well as we all do your statement isn't true: it has nothing to do with nominating for deletion; it has everything to do with being a sockpuppet and using an account name in violation of WP:USERNAME. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't know that was in violation of username. Next time when I nominate that article for deletion, I'll make a different user name.
- And yet my edits were reverted. Seems Wikipedia is a cabalk like you say. And a hivemind.
- With all due respect, too bad, so sad. Don't violate WP:HARASS and WP:SOCK and it won't be an issue. Oddly, I have contributed at Wikipedia for a long time, and these policies never struck me as cabal-ish. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- And yet my edits were reverted. Seems Wikipedia is a cabalk like you say. And a hivemind.
- Well, I didn't know that was in violation of username. Next time when I nominate that article for deletion, I'll make a different user name.
- And I see something I often see in sockpuppets: seeing a cabal where none exists, and, when confronted with their actions, always pretending like the fact that they're sockpuppeteers makes no difference. You know as well as we all do your statement isn't true: it has nothing to do with nominating for deletion; it has everything to do with being a sockpuppet and using an account name in violation of WP:USERNAME. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have any other account. I see Wikipedia is a very unfair place, where a person can tag and nominate hundreds of articles for deletion, but when another person tries to do it to just two spam articles, they get blocked forever.
[edit] Articles for Deletion
Actually, I have hardly ever nominated articles for deletion. Just so you know. Tagging articles for clean-up is an entirely different matter - it gives users an opportunity to address issues. --Jack Merridew 09:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yet you act as a hypocrite and remove the cleanup tags from your own spam articles. How thoughtful of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.64.236 (talk • contribs)
-
- see WP:OWN - we don't own articles here. Oh, at your instigation, I added refs to Tampaksiring. --Jack Merridew 09:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to think you own articles. You tag hundreds of them and protect your own spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.64.236 (talk • contribs)
- Those organizations do good work helping people with disabilities. visit www.senyumbali.org and imagine have an untreated cleft lip and palate. --Jack Merridew
 | This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] |
