Technical Questions and

Technical Questions and bewilderment See if someone explains it to me. We know that an IP can not take part in a vote. Can an Ip propose a query to be deleted If you say so … then I know nothing about our policies and standards. Lourdes message here 20:53 27 jun 2006 (EST) Do not know if you can (I think not), but considering that there are already two valid votes for removal, I do not think it makes much sense withdrawal. If we did, I imagine that any of those who voted for the raise once again, which would have been achieved only prolong the issue. The good news is that voting is attracting suggestions and insights that will help enhance the article (even merging with another). – Coma (talk) 21:37, 27 jun 2006 (EST) This was already suggested in the article talk page. It would be absurd, that it is this vote.The votes cast are products that have been caught by the insane who hung the sign as “Lourdes and I am of the same opinion, he did it for” revenge, envy or something worse. ” If we validate this vote, we would be validating that any vandal, hiding behind an IP address, start hanging “consultations” under any pretext (for even the pretext is “pulled hairs”) on all our items. A hug. – Ari Herrera Cuntti (Talk) 21:44 27 jun 2006 (EST) This vote is absolutely outside the rules, who made a proposal to delete the supports taking the first vote, so if we accept this, you are accepting, quite simply, the anonymous vote. And I’ll delete it, besides, do not you realize that you have deleted the anonymous vote skillfully displayed by default on the proposals Anna -> questions, complaints 23:13 27 jun 2006 (CEST) To what interested Hispa left this to “Hello Hispa. Snooky your attention regarding this.If you look closely, its proponents, is an anonymous IP 201.223.45.252 (talk contr. Bloq.) And only has two ions, which are those of the hanging of the “consultation” (see here). Under these conditions, the “consultation” is not appropriate and should be deleted. Furthermore, the article talk page, was finally concluded that the article is on Wikipedia. This on one hand. On the other hand: assume good faith . Look here and you’ll notice that the IP 201.223.45.252 (talk contr. Bloq.), ed hanging “consultation” at 16:41 first and 16:46, after June 25 this year .. . Now compare with this and see which is the same IP which publishes the “consultation” at 16:46 and 16:47 the same day and magically appears at 16H52 the same day also, Salinas.cl ie “another suggested, I just vote”, is that good faith, perhaps . I put my hand into the fire that 201.223.45.252 (talk contr. Bloq.) Salinas.cl and are the same person.It seems irrational to this approach. You can not advancing a Cunsulta of this kind, when it’s clear they are eager to fuck and their arguments “have no rhyme or reason” or that the maps made Olaechea Manuel Gonzalez and Franco. Should rather be Salinas.cl by vandal block: do you believe in reality he acted in good faith …. A hug. – Ari Herrera Cuntti (Talk) 20:26 27 jun 2006 (EST) “If you look carefully at the intervention of the anonymity of the anonymous s 16:47 in the sub title ‘back’ to finally happen intervention Salinas.cl. Luckily Anna and erased the “consultation.” – Ari Herrera Cuntti (Talk) 23:23 27 jun 2006 (EST) would have to consult a checkuser to verify the two IPs, without this test can not be assumed they are the same user, but is suspected. If anyone know of a checkuser and how do you tell me the query, I have not done before.Anna -> questions, complaints 23:33 27 jun 2006 (EST) I think it is clear that the proposed voting Salinas.cl, then, are we not talking about a registered user , It is likely that the connection has fallen off, as they happen. I think if I had tried to hide would have expected time but voted instantly. – S dlich 23:31 27 jun 2006 (CEST) Another thing, six people participated in the vote, and four in favor of the merger. So what to do next Do all act in bad faith “To the query-destroyed-again . – S dlich 23:34 27 jun 2006 (EST) It seems that someone does not understand whether it was Salinas.cl, acted in bad faith. A total of 6 ions as anonymous and the last newly identified to vote (do not forget that the anonymous with fewer than 50 ions, not voting): just realized the sixth ion, which was under an IP address bactuando with fewer than 50 ions .Please “do not look for trouble” or disturb the intelligence of others.