User talk:92.235.204.231

07:14, 18 January 2009 (EST)
 * C'mon, 60% of my edits were constructive, and the wandalism was quite clever. 92.235.204.231 11:30, 18 January 2009 (EST)
 * If you have an objection to the content of the template, then it would be best to discuss it on the talk page, rather than edit warring over it.  04:08, 24 January 2009 (EST)
 * He's FD and has been blocked. Not by me. --" 13:25, 31 January 2009 (EST)
 * No he isn't & he's been unblocked. By me.   13:27, 31 January 2009 (EST)
 * Ah. . . So he's you? I just warned Redcoat about it. Though looking at his edits, it made me think he was. I wouldn't bother to block him though. --" 13:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)
 * If a user does not sign as Fall down, they probably aren't Fall down. 13:31, 31 January 2009 (EST)

(unident) I know this is an oxymoron, but perhaps FD gotten a bit smarter, eh? He might have decided not to give himself away. --" 13:33, 31 January 2009 (EST)
 * Assume good faith; the idiot likes people to know that it's him vandalising. 13:35, 31 January 2009 (EST)
 * He would have picked up by now the fact that we'll just Vandal Bin any of his socks. --" 13:36, 31 January 2009 (EST)
 * But we also vandal-bin vandals, so it is pointless to hide his identity. 13:38, 31 January 2009 (EST)
 * (ECs) No, he isn't me, but I'm close to certain that he isn't FD. All the vandalising this user done is very very minor; barely blockworthy at all.  I suspect it may be a regular editor (don't know who) who sometimes just wants to do some slight mischief anonymously.  FD uses TOR (i.e. a different IP address each time) so wouldn't use the same IP address repeatedly as this user has.  Even if it was FD, permabanning a proxy IP address would be pointless.   13:39, 31 January 2009 (EST)