User talk:Lancombz

Welcome!

Hello, Lancombz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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! Brendan Moody 20:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Goodkind[edit]

As has been pointed out before, the current version of the article to which WLU, Runch, Omnilord, and I have been reverting is the result of much discussion on the talk page, which is how Wikipedians determine consensus on issues like this. Since no one participating in the discussion has advocated the version to which you reverted, there really can't be a consensus for it. Please participate in that discussion rather than simply restoring a disputed version. Thank you, and again, welcome to Wikipedia. Brendan Moody 20:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lancombz. Thinking TG is a dick is a bias, and it's one that I share, but it's not one that you can really put into a bio page without heavy reinforcement with references. The lot of us have been working on the TG page for months now, and what we have now is the result of a heavy back-and-forth. The version the people are reverting to comes from early April, 2006 I believe. The reason we're reverting without giving reasons is because the users are reverting to a version which we have already seen, edited and compromised to reach. On the other hand, anything you can find that makes TG look like a dick, and is reliable, is worth looking at for inclusion. I'd suggest the talk page as a test site though, you should get a very quick response. WLU 21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Rand[edit]

Good calls on the list of people Ayn Rand influenced; that took some time and research. And I agree: the names probably were chosen at random. Keep up that good work! —Scouter Sig 20:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Sockpuppeteer[edit]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lancombz for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

RFCU indicated you used the same IP as did FreddyTris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and FraisierB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you wish to continue editing on Wikipedia, I strongly urge you act proactively by (1) posting apologies on each of the talk-page of articles in which these accounts have overlapped, (2) agree not to use different accounts to edit the same or related topics (ie, Objectivism, Rand, etc). I am sure that once these have been done, faith will have been restored. Otheus 17:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up[edit]

While appearances can be deceiving, these are the only tools Wikipedia has at its disposal to prevent sockpuppetry abuse. While sock puppets are allowed, the problem is abuse. When multiple users from the same IP engage in edit wars over the same range of articles, and it is indistinguishable from abuse, it is, in fact, abuse. My remedy was to propose a ban, not a block, from Objectivist related articles. If you, FreddyTris, and FraisierB agree to submit to a topic ban, then I will personally appeal the block. Also, see my follow up to the SSP case here. Otheus 06:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]