User talk:Felonia

Archive: User talk:Felonia/archive

orthographie
Could you have a look at the RFV discussion? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You are Wonderfool
I think that you are Wonderfool, as I have noted elsewhere: Wiktionary talk:Votes/2010-09/Enabling AbuseFilter extension. Time to give up the game and move to another user name. --Dan Polansky 12:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you think I am. But I'm not, and I've got two CheckUser tests to back me up. I'm not changing my name to please you. Happy editing! --Felonia 12:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are these CheckUser tests publicly available? Can you link to them? --Dan Polansky 12:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you mistrust me. Not a good sign --Felonia 12:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (<-) Trying to be funny? Of course that I distrust you, or else I would not claim you are Wonderfool. Where are the CheckUser tests and what are the results? --Dan Polansky 12:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We say: of course I distrust you in English. --Felonia 13:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (<-) Cool, I can learn something from you; not a complete waste of time. Now where are the CheckUser results? --Dan Polansky 13:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Prosim, proč ne googlovat? --Felonia 13:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice, you speak some Czech. You claimed to be backed up by CheckUser tests, so you ought to prove the claim. --Dan Polansky 13:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, gimme a while to find these CU tests, I'll get back to you later K. Regards, vole. --Felonia 13:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, it was easier than I thought. These two tests show the result "inconclusive". The later test says: "Inconclusive There is some supporting evidence, but the user appears to be intentionally anonymizing his or her identity, which prevents a conclusive comparison. —Rod (A. Smith) 21:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)". The signs in your disfavor are increasingly clear. The very argument with two checkusers is a deceptive step. There is some fairly indicative non-checkuser evidence that you are Wonderfool. This evidence should suffice to prevent you from gaining adminship. You need to play the Wonderfool game with another of your accounts. --Dan Polansky 13:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Dan, I guess your annoying persistence has made be realize something. That I should play the Wonderfool game with another account. Of course, don't go thinking you're some majorly smart supersleuth or anything, and that you've got a decent career waiting in the private-investigator field. Oh, and good luck finding Wonderfool admin number 6 and proving that he's Wonderfool. BTW, being an admin totally sucks. And blows at the same time. I just enjoy editing freely. You know, deleting stuff and rolling back vandalism, and blocking people, and fiddling with teh Mediawiki stuff, that totally sucks. Except the rouge stuff, of course. Seriously, you did well to turn down adminship. I think I've nominated you myself a couple of times, in my bygone years. I'd rather have some other bugger do the dirty work. Anyway, now I've been openly accused of Wonderfolly, I can jump ship and start work on the new Wonderfool boat. I guess you're all expecting me to go on a little vandalism spree, right? --Felonia 13:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)