User talk:Slaphappy19
Looking Forward to contributing to the accuracy of Wikipedia.
Sockpuppets[edit]
@NeilN:: I've pinged NeilN as he was involved in the original sockpuppet case. This user appears to be the same as Strgzr1. Same articles edited, same agenda (here and here). Another recent IP editor, Special:Contributions/117.82.228.51, was blocked 3 days ago for attempting the same edits. Please advise if I need to start an investigation, thank you! Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- I just noticed that NeilN appears to not be very active anymore, my mistake. I am now pinging @Ivanvector:, as he was also involved in that original sockpuppet case. Thank you again. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry for your previous issues with another user, but it’s irrelevant here. I’ve noticed you have repeatedly deleted references and it appears you are “steering” certain articles in a biased manner and, most importantly, ignoring and deleting facts. Happy to message with any administrators or mods to verify identity and motives as I believe I’m promoting accuracy, transparency, and honest open discussion.Slaphappy19 (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm so glad that you're so well-versed in Wikipedia policy after only being here for a few hours. Should make things a lot easier to clear up, then. By all means, carry on! Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now, when are you going to replace the references you deleted in ‘cadet honor code’ and ‘military classic of the south’ articles?Slaphappy19 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- You either missed the point of my last sentence or you're deliberately ignoring it. Either way, let me make myself perfectly clear: The subject matter you're attempting to edit, your actual edits, your user and talk page elements, and even your manner of writing on other editors' talk pages are identical to Strgzr1 and 117.82.228.51; both blocked editors. Your claim that you are not the same person stretches credulity, to say the least. If you're truly interested in improving Wikipedia, a good start would be to come clean about your multiple accounts first. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ewen, I clearly understood your points and have repeatedly tried to work with you here. As I stated previously, your accusations are incorrect and I am not a sock-puppet or trying to antagonize you. At this point I will continue efforts to enhance the accuracy of articles (all articles--not just the ones your are trying to control by deleting references). Good day.Slaphappy19 (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- You either missed the point of my last sentence or you're deliberately ignoring it. Either way, let me make myself perfectly clear: The subject matter you're attempting to edit, your actual edits, your user and talk page elements, and even your manner of writing on other editors' talk pages are identical to Strgzr1 and 117.82.228.51; both blocked editors. Your claim that you are not the same person stretches credulity, to say the least. If you're truly interested in improving Wikipedia, a good start would be to come clean about your multiple accounts first. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now, when are you going to replace the references you deleted in ‘cadet honor code’ and ‘military classic of the south’ articles?Slaphappy19 (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm so glad that you're so well-versed in Wikipedia policy after only being here for a few hours. Should make things a lot easier to clear up, then. By all means, carry on! Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation[edit]
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/Strgzr1, 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.
Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Responding and listing this accusation as "bad faith" by editor: Ewen Douglas[edit]
Editor Ewen Douglas continues to make this accusation in order to prevent editor's own editing from being examined. Notice user's continual deletion of relevant, scholarly and current website/article references in previous edits on Cadet Honor Code and Military Classic of the South pages specifically. I have never edited citadel, military college of south carolina pages (as stargazer) and am not compelled to defend myself for using similar words or editing these two articles, of which I am fully knowledgeable. Deleting references, as user:Ewen Douglas has, should not be allowed. Looking back at edit histories on these two articles, the "back and forth" has been ongoing and the subject of much concern by many editors. Thank you for your time and consideration.Slaphappy19 (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Please note Ewen Douglas’ revert on Military Classic of the South page 8 Feb, wherein he calls my edit “edit made by a Sockpuppet” prior to any investigation, etc. This is an unfair and false accusation and clearly demonstrates an obvious bias here. Also see users edits to other articles mentioned. This editor clearly is ‘steering’ edits. I re-added source and request page be protected until discussion on sources can take place. Same with cadet honor code.Slaphappy19 (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)