User talk:Btharper1221/Junk

- 91.85.185.90 is not my IP for hang on. that IP is way off from mine. Thats somebody else. His English seems to be way better than mine.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First false accusations of vandalism (and the reply quickly removed from your talk page), now accusations of sockpuppetry. You might like to think twice before hitting "save" when dealing with other editors, as you are not helping in a collaborative editing environment. Thank you. 91.85.188.90 (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you decide to blast me for what I've done please reconsider your view (numbered if you wish to reply to them separately):

Anonymous IP addresses - particularly any with small edit histories, previous blocks, or those that appear to be dynamic - will be taken with more scrutiny than a registered account, this is not an actual intent on wikipedia, but simply a fact that vandalism edits are more likely to be from IP edits; there are in fact as well IP accounts that have been recognized as helpful, however they are usually static and extremely rare in comparison to IP vandals. You are encouraged to create an account, they are free, do not require any identifiable information, and can be used simply to retain your edit history.
Getting further into some of the stub articles in the California Highway WikiProject many are being redirected due to lack of sources. While unsourced articles are an obvious problem, there is no need to skip over attempts to find sources, if you can not then merging should then come after some discussion between relevant parties (should any exist, such as the WikiProject itself), there also exist templates to suggest merges. As far as I had seen none of these options had been rigorously pursued.
Redirecting pages needlessly and repeatedly without discussion does appear to be vandalism; even now, to myself at very least, these edits appear to be entirely unconstructive.
While you obviously noticed that I thought you were the account linked to Freewayguy's IP, I have not accused you of violating any policy regarding sock puppets. Users are free to edit anonymously if they wish, and log in when they feel the desire; this is what I believed to have been the case. As you became increasingly annoyed with reverts happening because of your account status Freewayguy came on the scene and continued in the same fashion as you had been - reverting back to the redirect because the article lacked sources. Simply put you and he appeared at separate but consecutive times and preformed similar tasks.
Your reply, and any other comments you make will remain intact; at least so long they remain relevant and coherent instead of gibberish, as you seem to be able to speak English as well as anyone else I don't believe this will become a problem. However please note that the discussion has instead been archived (here) as I believed it to be over. As well as my talk page I have every right to do with it as I wish with only a few exceptions; removing comments is simply an indication that they have been read. If anyone wanted to find such comments they persist in the history indefinitely, if you would like to refer to them you could use a diff or old revision

I would be glad to answer any concerns you have, but I still do not see anything wrong with my actions, though you have every right to disagree. Ben (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Split

Do you have a useful source for Hollywood Split. I spent alot of time trying to find a useful source, all I see is discussion forum.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one was a bit harder, and more fun to find, though personally I don't care how many hollywood couples split up. I found this and added it to the article. Please let me know if you need any other help :-) Ben (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]