User talk:Thorburn

Welcome!

Hello, Thorburn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits

You keep claiming I am removing relevant info and then reverting my edits. I dont want to have the page locked again so please tell me what relevant info you think I am removing. If you look I moved things around, but all the info is still there, so please tell me what I am removing, before you revert me. But there is someone removing relevant info and thats you. You keep changing the first sentence. You say that I am removing relevant info, but you keep changing the first sentence w/o explanation. Please tell me what I am doing wrong, specifically what you think I am removing, because I think all the info is there. - Rockyobody (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the comment you sourced twice in the discussion:

If you see Neal Boortz, his political affiliation was removed by User:Morphh, because I was talking to him and we both said that the intro was too long. His political affiliation was not even a valid link. In no way was I trying to make some sort of point, because I was told a long time ago that other people's articles should not be of any influence. And in regards to the Ron Paul edit, I did not think he could be called a libertarian if he was a Republican, without sourcing that, but I don't know exactly how that would even affect the article. Anyway neither of those edits were to bolster any type of point, although I do find it a little odd that Thorburn was watching my every move but I thought I'd clear that up. Rockyobody (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you see a difference? Because I do. So do most two year olds. Was I right or should I explain again? Do you see that I really was trying to avoid an edit war? Are you going to continue to ignore me or actually give me an answer? This does not have anything to do with the Larry Elder page, because I removed myself from the dispute. But are you honestly going to say I did not try to avoid it? - Rockyobody (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course i don't see it as you attempting to avoid an edit war. Your explanation was BS and Horologium said so. That's why he threatened to block either of us if we attempted doing what you pulled. Furthermore, how could you have attempted to avoid another edit war when you were the one who immediately started editing the page while the RFC was still going on? You didn't even attempt to make a comment on the talk page as to your changes. Thorburn (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to a way I thought was good. You reverted me. Instead of reverting you, I asked why you did, and what was wrong with what I did. I wanted to compromise. I wanted to avoid this. You however refused to answer me, removing my comment by saying you were "cleaning up". And you also said I changed it without explaining it on the RFC. So did you. I don’t know why you refuse to admit that at the very least I was taking a step toward avoiding an edit war, unlike you who wanted the edit war. But if you are not going to see it that way, I probably can’t change your mind no matter how obvious I make it. But you also claimed I left this comment multiple places. You obviously didn’t read anything. Are you going to admit you were wrong about that? - Rockyobody (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know why you keep commenting here. You admit you changed the article to something you thought was good. The key word in that sentence is "you." You did it without discussing it with anyone else, while the RFC was still on going and you did so just when the protection expired. To prevent an edit war, you are supposed to NOT EDIT AN ARTICLE and instead discuss content on the article's talk page, not unilaterally change it when nobody's looking, and especially not when an RFC was set up specifically to remedy the problem of an edit war. Please stop posting here or I'll be forced to contact an admin. Thorburn (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thorburn, you clearly did not listen to me in the above conversation, but instead of continuously pressing you to admit I was right, I stopped because you were accusing me of harassment. I can defend myself against all three sockpuppet accusations, but yours is the most ridiculous. I absolutely am never even going to look at the Larry Elder article again, much less edit it. And so when some anonymous user wants to edit, from an area I don’t live in, you try and blame me. I don’t even watch or O’Reilly or any of that Fox News nonsense. I have no clue how old his dad is, nor do I even care anymore about how the Larry Elder article looks. When you reported it on the accusation page, you also distorted the events to make you look right and make me look wrong. I thought I would retire from wiki, however these accusations are making me want to reconsider that, because I cant retire until this whole mess is sorted out. I’m also going to do a little research and find out exactly how many accounts you are using…, its obvious you are using more than one. - Rockyobody (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop posting here. I'm not going to debate your use of sock puppets on my page. The other user accused you of using 2 other ip addresses as sock puppets and after checking the one on the Larry Elder page I found it to be from the same location as the other 2 that user accused you of using. I added it to that investigation list and I added the appropriate suspected sock puppet tags to those ip addresses. All I did was add what I knew to the investigation which was already in progress. Please do not threaten me either. This is not about me. This is about a user with an ip address from the same location as two users' ip addresses in articles you've edited or in the vein of your editing. Someone accused you of using those two ip addresses as sock puppets. All I did was add that third ip address, which matches the location of those. I suggest you not attack users like me and instead focus on defending yourself on the investigation page. Thorburn (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ME?

I believe you left a sock puppet tag on my page. If you did, I don’t know why you did not ask me about it. I am a relatively new user, and I didn’t even know what this was about, so I read about it. And I’m assuming you are accusing me of editing in favor of rockyobody, I guess you’re saying I’m his man slave or something. Anyway before you start pointing fingers (actually you already did), let me explain. I am not much of a political guy, but I have a little bit of an interest. So I wanted to check out my favorite radio host’s talk page. When I went to Larry elder, it was protected and I didn’t know why. So I went to the discussion and there I saw two biased users taking constant shots at each other instead of trying to fix whatever the problem was. So I looked into it, and found out you were fighting over what to call him. I actually agreed with you, Larry is a libertarian, but it was protected until 3-10, so I couldn’t do anything about it. Instead I looked into the contributions of these two biased users, because I figured you both made many unconstruvtive edits to wiki. You actually never make edits, but he had about 100 every day. He was literally in control of articles, editing some relatively unknown articles multiple times a day. So I started checking them and making sure they did not have any of his bias. I don’t even know who half the people he edited are anyway. I probably wont edit many political articles, but I was just doing it then because I thought I was helping wiki rid itself of bias. I still don’t know why you did not check with me, because now my record says I violated rules, even though I did not. I don’t know enough of the rules yet, but I think there should be one against falsely accusing someone without checking with that person. In the future remember everyone is assumed innocent until proven guilty. Please alert me when everything is taken care of, because it is unfair to my so far clean record. Eaglesfan619 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Checkuser request

Ping! — Roger Davies ^talk 23:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be fair

Even though I do not believe I was being fairly treated, I do not want to be the same way. So I am letting you know I have filed a sockpuppet report on you.Eaglesfan619 (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't harass me or other users with baseless retaliatory sock puppet accusations or arbitrary reports in light of not being able to defend your own case, Eaglesfan619/Rockyobody. Thorburn (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

I saw that the SPI in to Rockyobody was just closed due to the time that has passed and the sock puppet activity seeming to have stopped. If it starts up again it can be reopened.

What I did find very funny is that after it closing an anon IP removed the SPI notices from the different user pages. It won’t come as any surprise to you that the anon editor is using Verizon in PA.

JimRDJones (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just checked. It's clearly Rockyobody. Same location and removing the tags was his first edit and his only other edit is a professional wrestler, which was one of the topics Rockyobody/Eaglesfan619 liked to edit. I wonder how he's able to get so many different anonymous ip addresses. What else can we do, but keep an eye on him until his edits become abusive again? Thorburn (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Deep Blue Something, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Wave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]