Loveshade Sockpuppet Purge

We are very sorry and want to apologize to all those targeted in The Loveshade Sockpuppet Purge on Fandom/Wikia and other websites. We don’t know how many people have been blocked from editing two versions of Uncyclopedia and other websites. We don’t know how many are now being targeted for a system-wide ban from Fandom/Wikia and other hosts (as of right now the number keeps increasing), but we sincerely apologize to all of you. We never intended anyone else to get targeted because of us.

We are going to be very frank about how this likely got going.

1) We write controversial stuff. We openly challenge social norms that we believe mistakenly assert that late 2oth century and early 21st century American and closely-related social standards are the only acceptable standards for human beings. We reject the notion that the majority of societies throughout human history were “evil” because they didn’t fit the way “we all know” things should be done. We frequently recall this observation of Lazarus Long (allegedly Robert Heinlein): “If ‘everybody knows’ such-and-such, then it ain’t so, by at least ten thousand to one.”

2) We admit we were investigated by local, state, and federal authorities shortly after 11 September 2001. There were a number of searches and seizures in various parts of the United States and possibly other countries. It involved at least a dozen agencies including the American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), reportedly the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and possibly Homeland Security (we haven’t verified the latter). Several people were questioned, and at least three people were arrested. After a period of years, according to a signed statement from the FBI, all seized material in their possession was returned. No one was convicted, except for one person who was convicted on a possession of marijuana charge which was apparently incidental to the main investigation (the marijuana, which was seized by a local agency and not given to the FBI, was not returned).

3) Some of us were involved in an admittedly unwise trolling/infiltration/sockpuppet exercise that successfully infiltrated and, for a short while at least, fooled members of a group known for trolling/computer hacking/harassment. That was years ago, but they’ve been going after us ever since. Advice: don’t try to out-master the masters.

4) An associate of The Loveshade Family started editing a wiki at Fandom, then called Wikia, and a friend applied to adopt it. An administrator who had made very few edits and who hadn’t edited that site in a long time came back. They made repeated demands that violated Fandom policy. Fandom approved the adoption, and the administrative status of the troublesome editor was removed. In addition, Fandom, by their standard policy, removed the admin status of the site’s inactive founder who hadn’t edited in years.  That got mistakenly blamed on the adopter, which got the site targeted by over a dozen people who vandalized and threatened people both there and on other websites, and got people associated with the Fandom wiki blocked from other sites and groups. After years, members of that group are still going after The Loveshade Family and its associates.

5) We have filed cease and desist orders, DMCA take down orders, and even a couple of restraining orders because of various violations and threats against us including death threats.

We accept full responsibility for our own actions. Again, we are very sorry to the innocent people who have been hurt by all of this.

We also understand that, while some people behind this almost certainly know what they’re doing, others may be sincere but misinformed.

To all these people, we ask, no we plead, that those who are spreading rumors and reports and slander and libel and blocking actions against a number of people they claim are us to stop and think if maybe, just maybe, somebody they’re hurting may be an innocent, and even underage, victim.  Some of them we don’t know about at all, but some of them are.

Wikipedia has a bit of what happened here. We have more of it here. The image that appears at top is listed on Uncyclopedia as being in the public domain.

This entry was posted in Crime and Punishment, Discordian and Ek-sen-trik, Family and Friends, Love and Sex, Media and News, Politics and War, Religion and Philosophy and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Loveshade Sockpuppet Purge

  1. TawTew the Naturally Perfumed says:

    I’m very sorry to see this is still going on, and that it’s hurting even more people. But you write like the others are innocent and you’re guilty. The Loveshade Family is guilty of sticking its neck out on the line to help others. I may not be a member, but I’m proud to be associated with you.

  2. Dr. Sinister Craven says:

    I am paranoid and I wouldn’t believe this stuff. Going after kids. They think one person is a dozen different people? They must have split personality disorder on the brain.

  3. GINA Is Not an Acronym says:

    I am a (now banned) Uncyclopedia editor and a victim of the Loveshade “Sockpuppet” Purge. Before I get into my story, I just want to say that I do not blame the Loveshade Family for anything that has happened to me personally.

    I became an Uncyclopedia editor in August of 2018. The articles I wrote seemed to be well-received by a number of people, including two of the administrators who would later be involved in the purge. So I was surprised (to say the least) when I was falsely blocked for sockpuppetry.

    I agree that some of the people involved in the purge “may be sincere”, and I will not do as was done to me and assume that I know the identities and the thoughts of the people involved in my ban. But the behavior of the two people directly involved in my purge is suspicious. For one thing, when an explanation for Alden Loveshade’s ban was given, he (like others) was told that he knew how to contact the administrator who was responsible. I was told nothing of the sort. If I am Loveshade, why not tell me the same thing? Or why not give me the contact information? After all, if I am Alden Loveshade and thus someone who already has his contact information, what is there to lose? Frankly, this sort of behavior is passive-aggressive.

    But what is really suspicious is the timing of the purge. How is it that after eight months of my activity on Uncyclopedia, it was discovered that I was a sockpuppet only after a vote had been called to determine the future of Uncyclopedia (more specifically, where it should be hosted)?

    If you are a fan of Uncyclopedia, I am sorry to be among the bearers of bad news and report that this is what has happened, and I hope you find a new wiki you can call your home.

    • There is a couple of Uncyclopedias at Miraheze, Spike’s site and Uncyclopedia 2.0. So if you want to keep on writing, you may do so there (Uncyclopedia 2.0 only has 12 articles, I’m sure they would love more). Just be aware than any images of questionable legality could bring down Miraheze as a whole. I’m sorry if you were incorrectly blocked, but we cannot be too careful on this where there is any question of legality or violations of terms of use.

      • Miley Spears says:

        So you ban her from one Uncyclopedia because she’s a sockpuppet, then invite her to join another? When the one you banned her from is deciding where to go? Suspicious, maybe?

        • A wiki with less than 100 pages is far easier to defend from threats, especially if no chat room exists, than is a wiki with 30,000 pages. This was a major factor in my decision to vote against going to Miraheze – I believed in good faith that Miraheze simply lacked the technical capacity to properly host all 30,000 pages of the wiki (not counting the forums), as well as lacking the financial resources to be viable in the long term. There was misbehavior in the Discord on the fork that resulted in bannings, as well as pictures posted on Uncyclopedia Wikia that were later detected and removed. If starting fresh and you truly are not the one who misbehaved in chat or posted pictures that were against the TOS, then Miraheze seems a good option to start over. Had I known we had more time than the 31st, I might have voted for the Llwy hosting option – but given the short period of time I believed we had, I thought two people wouldn’t have the ability to technically finish the tasks required before the door was slammed on us.

    • ICU says:

      GINA Is Not an Acronym is so obviously Loveshade it’s laughable. Loveshade loves anagrams. Loveshade wrote as Sheered Volva which is a Rev. Loveshade anagram and even admitted it. GINA is from VAGINA and Volva is from Vulva. GINA starts writing a feature article that Loveshade praised all over. The only people who edited it were GINA and Loveshade and Romartus who is another Loveshade sockpuppet. Stop pretending you aren’t all the same person we all know you are.

  4. Horton Hears a Whore says:

    Of great limbs gone to chaos,
    A great face turned to night–
    Why bend above a shapeless shroud
    Seeking in such archaic cloud
    Sight of strong lords and light?

    • To give credit where credit is due, this is the first stanza of the poem, “The Ballad of the White Horse” by G.K. Chesterton.

      (Yes, I admit I had to look that up.)

  5. Apple Carter says:

    Sorry but this is kind of funny. I’m on the spoon and the fork. They’re banning people on both sites who hate Loveshade because they mentioned you so they must be you! This is flat out paranoia.

    No way I am posting my ID there, but I’m off both those sites. Those peeps have gone loco!

  6. We are Anonymous, We are Legion says:

    We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

    You can’t stop us ever. We won’t stop until we read your obituary. Even then we’ll come and p*ss on your grave.

    We debated about allowing this post. But as it does not actually involve a specific threat to the living, and as it illustrates the continuing problem, we decided to let it stand with just a slight edit to one of the words as per our posting policy. While we accept all words as expressions, this is to prevent our blog being blocked by search engines. –TLF

  7. Pope Hildegard says:

    It saddens me to see others brought into this. This and the attack on the wiki you mentioned in number 4 are two of the worst I’ve seen.

    They blocked my Pope Hilde account on Uncyclopedia even though I’ve never even edited there under that account. The one I do edit with is still there. But I’m afraid if I protest this there, it will do no good and then they will ban that one too. But I will protest if you wish.

    • Your offer is greatly appreciated, but it would very likely result in your other account getting banned and nothing else.

      I learned that trying to convince someone their conspiracy theory is wrong is like trying to convince them their religion or political beliefs are wrong. It’s pointless.

      That’s why, after a long discussion, we decided not to defend ourselves, but to focus on apologizing to those who have been hurt by all of this. We do hope, though, that those involved in the banning who are sincere will consider the possibility that some of their current and possibly future targets may well be innocent.

  8. Typical sockpuppet behavior is to jump in all of a sudden to defend the original creator of the sockpuppet, as well as other sockpuppets. We have an email cabal at Uncyclopedia Wikia, and there is an image file that appears to have FBI docs in it, implicating Loveshade in some serious behavior. We have also found images posted on Uncyclopedia Wikia, as well as certain edits, that may substantiate the FBI docs in the image file.

    Anyone who is tempted to run to defend Loveshade on wiki should bear this in mind: a few years back, a friend of Denza (who is NOT Loveshade) tried to run to his defense after Denza was banned and tried to convince us to deop one of our admins (Spike). As anyone who has been on Uncyclopedia Wikia a long time may remember, that resulted in an indefinite ban for Denza.

    • Miley Spears says:

      Didn’t you notice the post you’re talking about is not a defense? Nobody who’s posted so far is making a defense?

      And we majorly get your threats. Anybody who supports a Loveshade gets banned too. Well don’t worry about me. I’m not coming back. Ever.

  9. Miley Spears says:

    The timing is totally suspicious. People been seeing Loveshade socks for years. This is nothing new. My family sent a certified letter about this for a lawsuit when I was like 16 years old when they accused me of sex crimes, and I turn 24 this month. The people who accused me admitted I wasn’t a sex offender and wasn’t Reverend Loveshade back then, like eight years ago?

    So why is everybody now suddenly getting blocked on Uncyclopedia for supposedly being Loveshade socks right when we’re having a vote on where Uncyclopedia is going? Suspicious timing?

  10. I contributed to the above, but can’t resist making my own comments here.

    So Alden’s now replaced me as the family’s miscreant monster under the bed? No, we’re supposed to be the same person, aren’t we?

    Alden was me, once or twice, but I haven’t been Alden yet (but I will keep trying.) Really not even I’ve written much in the past several years under the pen name “Reverend Loveshade” other than a comment here and there. I wanted to, but the publisher for which I write fake news didn’t want the name, so there.

    It’s funny how when somebody says that I know adults, they’re obviously fictional or sockpuppets. But if somebody says I know kids, OMG! I suppose I must live on a deserted island somewhere that holds only me and an orphanage.

    Sorry to disappoint you, but I have a wife and three kids (at last count), friends who are mostly adults, and spend too much time playing Race Driver (watch me go in the Volvo C30!) My wild days of lurking as a dangerous predator pretty much ended by the time I got married. Now I’m more of a threat to dirty nappies (OMG, did Reverend Loveshade say ‘nappies?’ What a pervert!)

    BTW, we should have done a blog on this. You know things like that get my perversion engine racing!

  11. Pet Girl says:

    They know you aren’t all the same people. That’s impossible. This is a hoax.

  12. I have a feeling I’m going to regret doing this because it gets very close to arguing over a conspiracy theory which I find pointless. But as this specifically addresses rules and I’m a self-appointed rules lawyer, why not make a further ass of myself.

    First, thanks to Simsilikesims for posting a link to this blog at Loveshade’s Reply at . I do suspect that Simslikesims, whom I believe is misguided, is also likely sincere. That, at least, is refreshing.

    Second, Simslikesims posted “You knew our policy on sockpuppetry.” Actually, I can’t speak for anyone else, but personally I didn’t. I hadn’t been active on Uncyclopedia since before it split in 2013, and haven’t been all that active since I started a new account in 2018 (I couldn’t access my old account, and publicly said I was the same person; there was no sockpuppetry going on there). I helped with an article or two, and only recall writing one UnNews article. I had no idea if policies had changed.

    Third, I have no intention of arguing over whether or not the dozen or more banned accounts are my sockpuppets. That does come under the category of arguing over a conspiracy theory, and I’m not going there. I’ll stick to the rules.

    Fourth, I checked and reaffirmed that Fandom/Wikia which currently hosts Uncyclopedia allows mulitple accounts, so having more than one does not violate their policy.

    Fifth, I tried looking up Uncyclopedia policy on sockpuppetry. I found which does not even mention the word “sockpuppet.”

    Sixth, I found, which again does not mention the word “sockpuppet.”

    Seventh, I found, which again does not mention the word “sockpuppet.” It does have: “F) Uncyclopedia policies/All Uncyclopedia policies are ignorable; therefore they belong to the list of non-existant policies mentioned in section (D). ” So it would appear that even if Uncyclopedia did have a policy against sockpuppets, it could be ignored.

    Eighth, finally I found
    It has “How to serve a ban/This page is considered an ignorable policy on Uncyclopedia” meaning, of course, that it can be ignored. But as I finally found something that talked about sockpuppets without being a joke page, I read it anyway.

    “Being banned means ceasing to participate in the life of Uncyclopedia for the duration of the ban. Specifically, coming back to create a different user name (a sockpuppet) violates this principle, as well as the assumption that different user names are really different people. Ban evasion and sockpuppetry violate the basic notion of order and are subject to harsher bans, no matter whether the ban-ee is trying to perform an edit he was prevented from doing in a different identity or merely to get the final word. Ban evasion includes editing talk pages as an IP during the duration of the ban if your username has been banned.”

    So the policy, which can be ignored, is that during the time you’re banned, you should not come back under another account in order to avoid the ban.

    As far as I know, neither myself nor the people identified as my sockpuppets have done that. So even if we don’t ignore that rule, it doesn’t seem to apply here.

    So why are we banned? Is there another policy somewhere on the site I didn’t see? (I would ask there, but their policy seems to be that they can decide you’re guilty without presenting any evidence and without letting you defend yourself or even asking why you’re blocked. Sorry if I just sounded a little bitter there. But that’s exactly what happened to a number of people–or a number of my sockpuppets.)

    • Tom T. Trucker says:

      So even though there’s no rules against, they’re banning innocent people for not breaking rules that doesn’t exist. Yep, that makes sense.

      It’s bad they’re doing this, but if you got people who get all Nazi like that, you’re better off having nothing to do with them.

      • Dr. Sinister Craven says:

        The Nazis fooled a lot of people. Some people with them at first were victims later. You can’t trust anyone who grabs too much power.

        But I know some of these people and they are not the same person. This is ridiculous. And Uncyclopedia is going after kids. Terrible.

  13. Roman Assbird says:

    Loveshade says every one of his articles are about bees.

    Romartus has a picture of a dead bee as his profile.

    Miley Spears was named a Loveshade sockpuppet.

    Miley Spears nominated Romartus for Uncyclopedian of the month and Useless Gobshite of the Month. When “she’s” not having “tiffs” with Romartus.

    Loveshade has written about the Whigs, how they were the major party with the Democrats when Abraham Lincoln (AL) was elected.

    Romartus wrote the feature article Whigs.

    Loveshade writes a lot about Elvis being a SubGenius and about SubGenius Prarie Squids.

    Romartus wrote the feathured article Augustus which features a squid called Elvis.

    Loveshade wrote a lot about the RMS Titanic and the Olympics.

    Romartus wrote RMS Olympic which talks about the Titanic.

    Miley Spears writes a lot about conspiracies including the featured FM radio conspiracy.

    Romartus wrote the featured Titanic Wireless Transmissions Conspiracy,

    Loveshade writes Discordian stuff about how the Trojan War was started by Goddess Eris because of Helen of Troy.

    Romartus wrote Helen of Troy, and notice how many times he sneaks in the word “love.”

    Loveshade loves using anagrams. And through his sockpuppet Johnny Shellburn he runs Thornley co-wrote Principia Discordia as Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst.

    Compare the name R-omar-tus to Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst. Omar art us?

    So why would Romartus suddenly block his own sockpuppets Alden Loveshade, Miley Spears, and PlacidDingo? Because we outed those sockpuppets, that’s why! He had to cut them off to save his own skin.

    Romartus = Loveshade Black Enforcer (talk) 16:51, April 9, 2019 (UTC)

    Black Enforcer is probably a sockpuppet of Loveshade. Romartus is personally known to me, as I met him in person when we both visited Wikia headquarters. Romartus loves history, and sexy English women who are of age. He was very unhappy when I made him watch an episode of Toddlers and Tiaras, which reminded me, by the way, of the time when I used to perform on stage as a ballerina in group dances when I was about 6. I remember clapping with the audience in a teddy ballerina costume when I was about 4, then being told by one of my peers not to. I found out later from my husband why someone might not like that show, and have never watched it again, once I was informed of the reason. I guess I have been quite naive, as I grew up largely overprotected. And I know the reason Romartus blocked the sockpuppets quite well, thank you, and if he had not done so, I would have several hours later once I found out about the issue. Conclusion: Black Enforcer is yet another sockpuppet, created to try to create confusion and murk the waters. Shows up out of nowhere, and complains about actions towards an individual he should know nothing about. — Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 18:16, April 9, 2019 (UTC)

    None of those people are Loveshade except Loveshade. Jake called.
    “He was very unhappy when I made him watch an episode of Toddlers and Tiaras” sounds a bit of “me thinks thou dost protest too much” though. Devil Details (talk) 20:37, April 9, 2019 (UTC)

    And once again, we have another “bystander” who has never contributed anything here contributed one VFD-worthy article in March, never voted on the fate of this wiki, but wants to add their protest to the discussion. Suspicious much? I smell another sock. — Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 02:23, April 10, 2019 (UTC)

    To credit the source, this is copied from . As contributions there are under a Creative Commons license unless otherwise stated, and as it is not otherwise stated there, this can be legally posted here. However, we make no comment about the accuracy or inaccuracy of this post. –TLF

    • Debbora Toft says:

      Simsilikesims you really are naive, aren’t you?

      “Romartus is personally known to me, as I met him in person when we both visited Wikia headquarters. Romartus loves history, and sexy English women who are of age. He was very unhappy when I made him watch an episode of Toddlers and Tiaras.”

      You don’t know what it means when a man is very uncomfortable watching little girls dancing around in skimpy clothing when someone else is in the room with him?

  14. Trojan Hoarse says:

    I’ve been on uncyclopedia for years and did several feature articles. But so did some of you and got permabanned, so no way in hell am I posting my user name.

    I’ve seen this stuff happen before, but this time it’s extreme. I don’t know what you did, but you got a lot of people panicking.

    Romartus is a fairy nice guy but he’s afraid of losing control of the site, so sometimes bans without thinking it through.

    Zombiebaron is also mostly nice, but he gets on these Holy Grail quests. It’s like if he knows there’s one villain in town and he can’t find him right away, he’ll burn down the whole town to make sure he gets the one guy. That’s why a lot of people don’t want to merge.

    Simslikesims is sincere, but she’s a little naive and panics sometimes. She banned one of your maybe sockpuppets and said he never wrote an article before she even checked. Then she went back and checked and saw he did, so had to reverse herself. But she still said he hadn’t voted on the move when he certainly had.

    So I plan to stick around, on one of the sites anyway. But if this happens again, I might be out too. Not worth the trouble.

  15. “the policy, which can be ignored”….One thing people should know about Uncyclopedia’s “ignorable policies”: you CAN ignore them, but you do so at your peril (kind of like ignoring a stop sign). Probably the most truly ignorable of the policies is HTBFANJS, since humor is very subjective, and if a lot of people (as voted on VFH) find something humorous but it violates the writing ideals embodied in HTBFANJS, the vote of the people wins. However, a reading of Flammable’s office (UN:OFFICE) may prove useful for those who have not been on Uncyclopedia long. Puppy on the Radio was banned for a month before the split, for sockpuppetry and vote disruption. Other “ignorable” policies that are much less ignorable are the policies against shock images, and against cyberbullying. If someone posts an article on someone who isn’t famous or doesn’t have their own article on Wikipedia, we kill the article, and if the article is negative enough, we ban the poster. We take the terms of service of our host very seriously, and if there is violation of this, we have to act. Loveshade wasn’t just banned for sockpuppetry. Loveshade, if you need more information, have your attorney contact me and I will send the attorney the evidence I have with full details. I take libel just as seriously as other illegal behavior. If you are truly innocent of everything and the evidence was forged by someone, this would fall under that category.

    • You didn’t specify which Loveshade you meant (I know, you believe there’s only one, and I’m assuming you’re responding to my comment). But you can send whatever evidence you may have to legal (at) loveshade (dot) org (I imagine you know to substitute @ for (at) and . for (d0t) and ignore the spaces–it’s posted that way to reduce spam.)

    • I don’t know that you’ll see this, but it appears I’m blocked from contacting you in any other way. But we have not received the information you mentioned and that I requested eight and a half months ago. If you haven’t send it, or sent it and we never got it, I would appreciate you sending us that information to legal (at) loveshade (dot) org (I imagine you know to substitute @ for (at) and . for (d0t) and ignore the spaces–it’s posted that way to reduce spam.)

    • It’s now been a year and a half since my initial request, and I still have not received the alleged evidence I requested.

      Again, I was told to contact a person I was blocked from being able to contact. I am not rich, so have no intention of hiring an attorney-at-law just to say “Show me the evidence you claim you have against me.” Frankly, I doubt very much I would do that if I was rich.

      Besides that, for an attorney-at-law to handle this legally, I would need to have Simslikesims legal name and address. If Simslikesims will provide me with their legal name and address, then we can proceed. Otherwise, they can email or describe the alleged evidence and sent it to legal (at) loveshade (dot) org (I imagine you know to substitute @ for (at) and . for (d0t) and ignore the spaces–it’s posted that way to reduce spam.)

  16. minecraft says:

    So this is the story. they feature your articles because they think they’re great, then they think your sockpuppets are writing even more great feature articles than they thought, so they ban you.

    Stupid is as stupid does.

  17. BS Joe says:

    I left the site because of sh*t like this. We live in paranoid times. Buffalo Springfield sang it years ago.

    Paranoia strikes deep
    Into your life it will creep
    It starts when you’re always afraid
    Step out the line, the men come and take you away

    We censored one word of this comment not because we’re afraid of certain words, but because search engines might block this site because of them. Please see our posting policy. –TLF

  18. Dharma says:

    Hate mongers is what started this, trying to get revenge for you exposing them.

    But why not show proof you’re different people? You could send it privately, IDs, photos, mail, something like that.

    • I appreciate the suggestion. There’s a few problems with it, unfortunately.

      First is that some of us, notably Miley Spears, has done just that many times. That kept her on Facebook when Facebook required people to show proof of their legal name, and I believe got her back in an organization that had banned her, but I don’t know the details about that. But presenting that evidence to conspiracy theory believers is like Barack Obama showing his birth certificate, or astronomers presenting evidence the Earth is not flat. When people are set in what they’re going to believe, evidence is not likely to change their mind; they can always believe any evidence that contradicts what they want to believe is fake.

      Second, several people have shown their photos, not necessarily as proof, but simply in the way many people do on social media and the like. The strange result is that some people’s photos have been interpreted as proof they exist, and some people’s photos have been interpreted as proof they’re really somebody else. Again, there is no logic to this that I can see, but that’s the way conspiracy theories work.

      Third, there have been threats including death threats made, not necessarily by people of a particular website, but against some of us. One person who made threats within the past year was taken into custody, and another who made threats earlier was incarcerated. But there are others out there. Anybody who is closely associated with The Loveshade Family is advised not to give out any information that could identify their specific location. This may sound paranoid, but according to a counselor, a former military “commando,” a retired government investigator, and a few law enforcement officers, it is not.

  19. Tom T. Trucker says:

    This is how groups like that work. Somebody gets the feeling of a tiny bit of power under their belt, they think they got to go around showing it off.

    That’s what happens when people have no military experience. They don’t understand how real power works.

  20. Melanie Jinx says:

    Simsilikesims is so right. Only guilty people defend themselves!

  21. ParaDave says:

    I looked at [REDACTED], and it looks to me like you have a case. I won’t post details publicly, but I’m going to be at the CLE Luncheon on May 14 at the Downtown Club in the Houston Center. If you’re interested in discussing this, email me.

    Based on the request and the advice of the poster, some information was removed from this post. –TLF

    • I appreciate that. I received some legal advice on that particular related issue, and have contacted the website host. We’re discussing how to proceed. I would really rather resolve this without going through the court system if possible. But if it comes to that, I will definitely keep you in mind.

  22. Zombie Charles says:

    So who’s going to be your attorney? One of your sockpuppets? Busted!

  23. Anonymous says:

    It is not over yet. We do not forgive. We do not forget.

  24. PuppyOnTheRadio says:

    All I can contribute to this conversation is that I like boobs.

    • Anonymous says:

      PuppySh*t on the Radio don’t be so obvious. You were the first to be banned as a Loveshade Sock. We all know who you are, Lovesh*t. So shut the F*ck Up!
      We aren’t afraid of “certain words,” but some search engines are. Please see this for guidelines for posting. –TLF

  25. DK says:

    Have you seen this link? Unfortunately, there isn’t anything I know that can be done about this. As weird as it sounds, I don’t particularly care except for other people getting hurt.

    • I’m assuming you mean the link from your initials; thanks for that. I hadn’t seen it personally, so appreciate your posting it. I will refrain for now from making comments on the link itself.

    • Miley Spears says:

      Who is that anyway? And why did she post it on my ten year anniversary of joining Uncyclopedia?

  26. I'm My Own Sockpuppet says:

    Obviously she posted it on Miley Spears’ 10-year anniversary because the poster is Miley Spears! Another sockpuppet exposing her own sockpuppets. Isn’t that what Loveshade does?

    The logic is this post is astounding. Here these two people write the same way giving evidence they’re the same person. Here these two people sometimes write the same way and sometimes don’t giving evidence they’re the same person. Here these two people write completely differently giving evidence they’re the same person.

  27. Anonymous says:

    We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not stop. Ever!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.