User talk:121.210.234.34

December 2011

Hello and welcome! It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content without explaining why. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing, and, if you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you! Sven Manguard Wha? 13:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain why. I then repeated an explanation as to why. The fact that we disagreed about the issue, does not mean that I didn't provide an explanation. The history on that particular content clearly shows where I included an explanation. Sam 3982 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Rapke

Your recent edits at Jeremy Rapke have removed both sourced information and a tag advising of the uncertain notability of the topic. Please note that articles about living people must have sources, otherwise they will be deleted (see WP:Blpprod). The information added is not contentious; it is presented in a neutral tone and is sourced to reliable sources. The notability tag is in place to encourage editors to improve the article; removing it actually decreases the likelihood of the article being upgraded and kept. Please have a read of the policies I've linked to before changing the article again. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wotif.com, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You recent edits

Please stop removing sourced material from Wikipedia, as you have done recently at Wotif.com, Graeme Wood (businessman) and Jeremy Rapke. Wikipedia operates a policy of verifibility: if something has been reported in a reliable source then it is acceptable for inclusion. You can challenge the sources (at WP:RSN), or you can add information that balances the article which is supported by other reliable sources. Simply deleting content you do not agree with - and that includes not agreeing with the original sources - is not acceptable. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Jeremy Rapke with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brandonfarris. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I've responded more than sufficiently at that page, and tried to message "Sven" about these issues directly, only to see him ignore & delete the first message I sent him about this, no response to the email I sent him, and then he "collapsed" the next message I tried to send him about this on his talk page, and repeated this claim that somehow I am a "sock puppet".

To reiterate here, if anyone sees this talk page:

I am not Brandonfarris. I've scarcely used Wikipedia at all before until today. I was very surprised when I saw that 'Sven Manguard' was trying to accuse me of this.

I created this account because I wanted to be able to reply to 'Sven' and to 'Yunshui' about the issues to do with the behaviour of "Brandonfarris", whereas I figured I wouldn't have been able to do so if I'd continued to just use Wikipedia straight from my IP address.

The reason I took the action I took today was because I was angered when I heard about the political activities 'Brandonfarris' has been attempting to conduct on Wikipedia in recent days.

I found out about these activities through a blog on the 'Crikey' news outlet here in Australia called 'Pure Poison'. The link to the article about this issue is here - http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2011/12/11/whos-been-digging-into-melbourne-journalists-pasts-and-creating-odd-articles-about-them-on-wikipedia/

I don't like the fact that this guy is running around trying to insert his own political agenda into Wikipedia articles, and using Wikipedia as a way to attack the reputations of any people and organisations he doesn't like.

That's why I did what I did. I don't like astroturfing when I see it. There's far too much astroturfing happening around the Web in Australia as it is, without such people being able to compromise Wikipedia as well. Sam 3982 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I tried again subsequently to talk about this with "Sven", only to have him "collapse" my message, and repeat this claim that somehow I am a "sock puppet". Would be nice if he were to read the substance of what I've said, and view the article linked.

But no, he evidently didn't do that. Instead of actually reading the substance of what was said, it seems that "Sven" is just going to keep on ignoring my comments and "collapsing" them. My next reply to him on his talk page was also "collapsed". My subsequent email has also been ignored.

It's a shame that he is apparently now just disregarding anything that I have to say about these things. Even disregarding the fact that the issue of this "Brandonfarris" astroturfing has been reported publicly on a blog within a major Australian news outlet. Anyone who wants to, can easily check this through the article link I've already posted.

Also a shame that instead of properly dealing with what this guy has been doing, the dubious nature of sources, the party-political and otherwise transparent agenda being pursued - reported as such on the "Pure Poison" blog - "Sven" is just targeting me instead and trying to make out that I'm a "sock puppet" of this guy. Sam 3982 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that someone else is also being unfairly targeted by "Sven" now - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:140.247.238.78

Seems like this guy is only trying to fix up some vandalism by someone else on another Wikipedia page, just like I was. But "Sven" has then accused him of "vandalism" instead. And apparently deleted the response back from this guy on his talk page which pleaded that he was trying to remedy vandalism, not cause it. Not good... Sam 3982 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.