User talk:JBW
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Deutsche Standard
New sources will be added within 2 weeks, as i did not have time due to a new job. 172.56.17.79 (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Response
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Probable disruptive sock of the banned User:Januarythe18th
Sorry to bother you, JBW, but a new user has suddenly appeared and started to make major changes to the article Brahma Kumaris and Dada Lekhraj. Those [1] are in general very similar to the ones previously made by the user User:Januarythe18th. His claims [2] on the talk page are also very similar. It seems obvious that he is a sock for the number of similar words, expressions, claims, and disruptive, religious prejudicial type of editing. Any help would be much appreciated. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- @GreyWinterOwl: At a quick glance it looks as though you may be right, but I don't have time to check properly at the moment. At present I have no internet access at home, so I won't get a chance to look into it before tomorrow, or possibly even the day after. However, thanks for calling my attention to it, and I will get onto it as soon as I can. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- @GreyWinterOwl: My internet access has now been restored, and I have looked at the editing history. I have found a few edits which possibly suggest the two accounts are the same person, but nowhere near enough evidence to justify any action. I can also see definite differences between the two editors, but that means very little, as there is reason to believe that Januarythe18th may in the past have faked differences between two accounts that he or she used, to avoid the impression of sockpuppetry. Can you give me some specific edits that look suspicious, beyond just a general feeling of similarity? The fact that both editors have a similar critical view of the editing of the same article is not enough, as there may be many people who share similar views about the religion. You refer to similar words and expressions; can you show me a few examples of the different accounts using strikingly similar wording? (You may like to do so by email, to avoid warning the editor what give-away signs to avoid in the future.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. Can I send the evidence by email in wiki format, so that I can include diffs? Thanks. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- @GreyWinterOwl: Yes, that's fine. Even if you send wiki markup that doesn't work in the email, I can easily copy it, paste it into a sandbox, and click the "preview" button, so that I can read the wiki format without actually posting it to any Wikipedia page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have looked at the evidence you gave in your email, and I have given you my conclusions on your talk page. My comments are here, in the section headed "Possible sockpuppet". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
SPI
Just wanted to bring this one to your attention [3]. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Response to your message
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Response
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Possible Young Living Sock Puppet
Can you please help me? I believe that User:Tpmeli is a sock puppet for the company Young_Living. I believe he is Thomas Meli, a Young Living distributor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6pA7lluDbc). I cannot undo (rollback) his edits due to edits which have occurred since then. What should I do?Christopher Lotito (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Christopher -
I AM a young living distributor and I corrected numerous factually incorrect data - please see the talk page for details on how much was completely off about that page. -
I invite you to please look carefully at what was changed and the talk page between greyfell and I. What exactly you basing the conclusion that I am a "sock puppet" for the company on? I corrected incorrect information and suggested edits that would portray the company as it actually is. The article was clearly written mostly by a competitor that was using wikipedia to smear the company. Isn't that an obvious conflict of interest? I was attempting to remedy an already egregious situation.
Please proceed with evidence instead of accusations that aren't based on actually cross checking the information to see if it is accurate.