User talk:Liondragon360

Sockpuppetry

Are.u.sure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Liondragon360 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Use of multiple accounts is normally not allowed, at least in the way you seem to be doing it. Since your User:Are.u.sure account is the oldest, I suggest you only use it. We can then blank this one and leave it dormant. If you don't respond properly and honestly, we will open an SPI on you and both accounts will get blocked. Note that the IPs (and other personal data) behind each account are visible to those editors with check user status, so lying will have very negative consequences for you. -- Valjean (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. I only ever have had the Are.u.sure account. I thought the 'sock'comments meant that you thought I somehow am working for lawofficer.com? Are.u.sure (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, this has nothing to do with that website. Sockpuppetry is the use of multiple accounts, especially when one person does so in a pretense of being more than one person. Stop doing that and follow the advice above, otherwise, both accounts will be blocked. -- Valjean (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

trust me,i am different person than are you sure,you could verify my ip,i am not a sock of are u sure,there is a confusion happening here.Liondragon360 (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it help to know that I'm not him/her? Are.u.sure (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am male,but yeah.Liondragon360 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're new here and unfamiliar with our rules and practices, let's make a deal. If you won't use this account anymore and only use your Are.u.sure account, I won't report you, but if I see any misuse of this account, I will file an SPI report and get both accounts blocked. Okay? -- Valjean (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He lives in Poland,and i don´t live in Poland,what is more possible?that he and i are the same person,or that he and i are different person?his account is old,i lurk for five or six years,i think.You need to prove that i am his sockpuppet,my ip 152.250.143.70 i live in Brazil are.u.sure lives in Poland.Liondragon360 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean - What evidence do you have that these two accounts are related? You're making accusations and I don't see any evidence supporting this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, I am not the only editor who has accused them of being socks. The sudden appearance of a new account that acted like a clone was noticed. If necessary (and I leave a way out above) I would present the evidence in an SPI filing. I have listed the evidence I have noticed on Are.u.sure's talk page, but here it is: both users are British, edit the same article's talk page, sign at the beginning rather than ending of their comments, tag team as if being two different people, and push the same odd agenda. These things are just too "coincidental", IOW the quacking is very loud. I see that the user page here has been tagged as a possible sock.

If the editor insists on denying, then an SPI will be filed and I'll certainly apologize if I'm wrong, but we both know that their IPs and locations don't have to match. There are ways around that. Since they have identical agendas on that talk page, there would be no loss if only one commented.

BTW, since I haven't filed such a report in a long time, if they are judged to be socks, would one account (presumably this new one) be indef blocked and the other one get a short block? How does that work? Please refresh my memory. Both accounts have very few edits. Since they are not engaged in egregious behavior like edit warring, I would plead for leniency.

There is an issue of bludgeoning mentioned here, but hopefully they won't continue down that path. -- Valjean (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean - No worries. I wasn't trying to ask you for evidence in order to point fingers at you. When I see accusations like this, I try and ask for an explanation. You'd be surprised as to how many people don't provide any. :-) To answer your question: Yes, I would indefinitely block the sockpuppet, and block the master. It would expire at a different time depending on the circumstances, or be indefinite depending on the circumstances. By the way, it's never helps the situation to directly accuse someone of sock puppetry - just file a report if you suspect it. I'm not saying that Liondragon360 is a sockpuppet, but let's say for example that they are. If they're a troll or an LTA, you just gave them a reason to cause more disruption or be more abusive before they get "bagged and tagged" (as I call it). If they're trying to be deceptive about it, you just told the user that you're on to them - and that they need to make a new account and try and be deceptive another way. There's absolutely no benefit or advantage to the project by doing so. Just file a report. :-) If anything, if you make accusations just to find that you're wrong, you save yourself from looking like a jerk, and save yourself from having to apologize for the words you've said (I'm not calling you a jerk or implying that you are one. Ah, you know what I'm trying to say... lol). ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is MUCH wisdom there! Thanks for the good advice. In this case, I am just hoping I can avoid filing a case. Let's see what happens. -- Valjean (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean. You're welcome. Thank you for listening to my input. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"British"i am not british,i am Brazilian living in Brazil,he is British living in Poland.Liondragon360 (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my 'agenda' is odd. If you look at my Facebook page for my COVID-19 post on June 12 this year you'll see that I think that the George Floyd Demonstrations caused the second wave. I am also unsympathetic with the way the police as a group (identity politics anyone?) have been villified by sofa journalists and politicians. I really do suspect that the Democrats were 'playing the Race Card' out of fear that they might lose. You probably know better than I do because I generally avoid politics. Are.u.sure (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liondragon360, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Liondragon360! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Death of George Floyd

Changing the title from 'killing' to 'death' is a good way to start. The title was originally something like 'Murder of George Floyd' I had noticed.

I really find it hard to understand why people have such trouble with reading the autopsy or Andrew Baker's statements. All this nonsense about secondary sources being newspapers/journalists is worrisome, both in a legal sense and in a scientific sense.

Andrew Baker wasn't a witness. His role is to examine the body as meticulously as possible. He should not even see video recordings, for example, or read any bystander statements for example. He examines the corpse systematically making observations. He collects samples for laboratory analysis. He is expected not to be motivated by partiality in the outcome and to ensure this he would not, for example, perform an autopsy in anyone he personally knew. Are.u.sure (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good news Andrew baker did not see the videos and there is a post on reddit showing Michael Baden error in his autopsy,see https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/iizxx3/filings_late_friday_by_the_defense_in_state_vs/

Do you think the consensus of opinion is moving? I'm afraid that some people are being deliberately obtuse. Are.u.sure (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunaly no,i think we need to stop and come back january 1 2020,because the thread is too long and did not change nothing,i hope some evidence appears in the future.Liondragon360 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this page to continue in its present form. The first link above, to the Reddit article, is absolutely damning. That the editors are picking and choosing between newspapers based on their own selection shows strongly that they are managing this page for political ends.

If they won't even retitle the page then I propose starting a new page with the title Death of George Floyd ourselves. Would you like to do the work? You seem to have all the links necessary. Are.u.sure (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops they've got that one. How about George Floyd Autopsy? Are.u.sure (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No,i want to wait for the trial which is 8 of march 2021 to end,to change the page,yeah you don´t want,but they said that 1 january 2021 that discussion can return or after the trial,that´s why i will wait for the next year,i don´t know if they are doing for political ends,the vast majority of people are ignorant and only see the bystander video and already make up their minds,also you are violating rules of this site,if there is already a existent article,there is none reason to create the same topic,i think you should take a breath and chill,i already decided that i am waiting for 1 january or after the trial if still they don´t want to change.Liondragon360 (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]