User talk:Bluescreenofdef

Welcome to my talkpage

Please feel free to leave a message below the line

I had a very unpleasant experience with this editor that ended with my account blocked. He and his abusive language got me a little miffed, and I edited an article in anger - rather than with a clear mind. Now that I am active again, I went to look at his page which was indecent to say the least. After that, I found that you are involved in an investigation now and were involved into past investigations for COI and sockpuppetry among other violations. I have no proof, but I strongly suspect - given the nature of the articles on which this editor has been involved, is that he works for a public relations firm. I am unable to look further into the matter, since I do not know, nor do I want to know, his IP address. My guess, however, is that any investigation along those lines would lead to a PR firm. Moreover, I would guess that an analysis of his usage would show him editing a full business schedule.

I hope that my addition to you talk page is helpful and not an additional problem for you to handle. I mean,I hope that I am not violating any wikipedia rules by doing a little investigation. If so, I will stop immediately.

email me. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This gives me an idea for a new website... www.cranksreunited.com. A PR firm? I'm afraid our colonial cousin has to take responsibility for his own blocks. Which, as can be evidenced by his edit history, is as a result of his propensity for rumour and conspiracy theory. Here is just another one. For the record though, not that it's any of your business, I'm a self-employed IT consultant currently working with a firm of local solicitors. Mr "American from Texas and I can't be bothered signing my posts" you will find that I edit at all times of the day and night, UK time, as I work from home and not some PR firm. Sheesh, conspiracy theorists, what will they come up with next? --WebHamster 12:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 00:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bluescreenofdef for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 00:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. It felt good to be exonerated from that. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit waraccording to the reverts you have made on Round the Horne. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. WebHamster 23:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive conduct.
The next time you make a personal attackas you did at Andy Billups, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. WebHamster 02:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a bit ridiculous? Report him to WP:AIV then, including some recent diffs, if you think a block is legit. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 02:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it's okay to continually accuse someone of CoI and OWN with no evidence, no proof and it's pretty bloody obvious it's being quoted to to justify the edit. If that's not a personal attack I don't know what is. Like I said either block him or block me and ignore the evidence in front of you, that's the only way this disruption will end. --WebHamster 02:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You both violated WP:CIVIL and as you might have seen I always tried to be neutral in your dispute. Honestly, you both annoy me to a certain extend and I don't know why I'm still trying to do something for you. Mainly because some edits invloved pages I have on my watchlist, that's all. I might report both of you for a block, if this does not stop.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 02:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to be civil. I am Initiating talkpage discussion and explaining my edits in my edit summaries. I do not revert unilateraly using the non WP:AGF term "vandalism". I am happy to discuss each and every edit and not to comment personally. I would appreciate the courtesy. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civil my arse, civility does not include making baseless accusations in virtually every edit summary. Likewise your obvious misunderstanding of what consensus actually is isn't helping either. --WebHamster 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want this guy representing Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.109.195.126 (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Hamsters, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 03:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Bluescreenofdef (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite off more than you can chew by throwing an attenuated COI into the mix, which works out to an allegation of bad-faith editing. Simply pointing out the violations of CIVIL and V and RS and NOR and EW and CONSENSUS (if any) will be sufficient to achieve the results you want. WP:COOL. THF (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I understand what you are saying. While painfully obvious it is impossible to "prove" that this dude represents this non notable band. His problems with V RS OR and NPOV need to be addressed and his CIVIL issues should really get him booted off wikipedia. Bluescreenofdef (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points of order. The band is notable as can be evidenced by their presence on WP. You continually saying they are non-notable does not make it so. You have no evidence, none, nada, zilch... that I represent the band in any official capacity. Your continual assertion comes under the banner of WP:NPA (seeing's how you love all these WP shortcuts) as such I suggest you quit whilst you are ahead with regard to making accusations you can't back up. --WebHamster 12:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit waraccording to the reverts you have made on Round the Horne. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --McGeddon (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Hamsters. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 09:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 22:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any admins considering unblock, please consult with me before considering unblock, CU evidence has bearing. ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts. (Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage)

--86.29.142.84 (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

This account is a sockpuppet of Prester John (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

--86.29.131.79 (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]