User talk:TempoBravo

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrsPhinch, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 14:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I copied an pasted from user page talk. Surely you can look at the IP and see that I am not a Sockpuppet. TempoBravo (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

So you're just copying other users content without attribution in violation of our attribution and copyright policies and your timing is just conveniently coincidental. Canterbury Tail talk 16:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It is from the ongoing conversation on the page talk, I mean no harm. I do not use Wikipedia, I am simply trying to help fix the mess the page is now in due to vandalism, and point out for editors, as others have, at what point the vandalism of the page began so that it can be restored to that point prior to improving it. Try to be sympathetic to the fact that there is a childless mother and her family who’s loved one’ memory is being desecrated as a result of the bickering back-and-forth. It’s truly a shame that this is occurring. TempoBravo (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read up on what constitutes WP:Vandalism and don't throw around accusations of vandalism when it is not. Canterbury Tail talk 16:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The page was vandalized, you only need to look at the edit history to see for yourself that user: Kate R. DeLaney made major edits to the page attempting to write another out of the history and herself in beginning on February 17, 2021. They are certainly not accusations, they are fact that are evident in the edit history; have a look. TempoBravo (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. It is a content dispute. False accusations of vandalism will not be tolerated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Again they are not accusations, I am looking at user Kate R. DeLaney’s edits which align with the Wiki’s definition of vandalism. Read the definition of vandalism as per the Wiki and look at user Kate R. DeLaney edit history. Any non-biased user can see user Kate R. DeLaney‘s deliberate attempts to write out another out of multiple sections of the page and write herself in. Not only did user Kate R. DeLaney commit vandalism, she has a direct conflict of interest with the page and it’s content. Half of the history is missing from the pages history section. Any you can see from user Kate R. DeLaney’s edits she altered the International Wave of Light, which is the event that the day of remembrance circulates around, and changed the content with intent to deceive; again this are not accusations, they are facts based upon evidence contained in user Kate R. DeLaney’s edit history. TempoBravo (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Remain mindful, while you are wasting time attempting to prove a "sockpuppet" theory that has no merit, the family’s whose child is being desecrated as a result of the vandalism of user Kate R DeLaney, and the bickering back and forth of editors, as opposed to restoring the page back to it’s prior vandalized state prior to improving it is suffering due to the psychological pain and anguish this is causing for them. TempoBravo (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not vandalism. It is a content dispute. False accusations of vandalism are disruptive and not permitted. This comes to a stop now. You will not be permitted to pursue a vendetta on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no "vendetta" to prove, the proof of vandalism is evident, in the history, which more than a dozen non-biased individuals external to Wikipedia have all agree. I will not waste anymore of my time on this matter nor on this biased platform. TempoBravo (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)