This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Precious
standing strong | |
Thank you for speaking up with decency and fairness, treating editors as living people: "there was and is a human being who contributed his time and efforts to the project", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC) |
- On this day PumpkinSky's Easter egg tree and my Bach cantata mentioning an approach for peace are featured together on the Main page, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The article Michael Rodak, Jr. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unsourced for five years. No evidence of notability.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cresix (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
David Price (soccer)
Newyorkbrad sorry to bother you but by mistake (I'm useless) my IP address and my old username, David Price (Liverpool)have been used on David Price (soccer). Can these be deleted or can my view history page be locked? --PAL1234 (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You're invited: Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-thon!
|
Hi again!
I don't seem to have heard anything back from you (regarding our email), did it kinda slide off your to-do list? -- Despayre tête-à-tête 18:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Legal question involved in request to edit protected page
I am not a lawyer, but there is a request to edit a protected page at Talk:Scientology#Edit request on 25 May 2012 which seems to at least my eyes to involve some details of legal phrasing. I think someone who might know the law a bit better than I do, like maybe you, might be in a better position to decide whether the material presented is sufficient to make the requested edit in the protected article.
Sorry for bothering you like this, but I do think this matter might involve some real expertise in the law. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Echigo mole again
A sockpuppet account Jello carotids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has already been blocked for trolling on the WP:AN thread that another user opened on Echigo mole has been blocked as "sock troll" by FPaS. He also opened a SPI report on me similar to that of a previously blocked sockpuppet of Echigo mole, having located legitimate alternative accounts, used either for collecting information on the use of vodafone IPs for socking or collecting large numbers of rough diffs as a preliminary to submitting evidence on arbcom pages. Jclemens has not run a checkuser on the blocked account Jello carotids. Instead he is suggesting that my collapsing on AN and reversion there and elsewhere, which are similar to those of mutliple other users, are a sign of battleground behaviour. He has restored the SPI report on me deleted by FPaS. On 29 March, Southend sofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a similar report which was dismissed by several administrators as without merit. Southend sofa, because of a set of anomolies in their editing related to other sockpuppet accounts of Echigo mole, was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole 2 weeks later by DeltaQuad. When the SPI report on me was listed, one of the alternative accounts in use for the arbcom review was listed and all the raw diff files were present. 3 days later, since the rough diffs were still needed, I coalesced the rough diffs into one file in a new account that was reported by Jello carotids, identically to Southend sofa. Jclemens seems to be militating to change the way serial wikihounders whose sockpuppetry shouts out through a megaphone are treated. He seems to be doing this in only one specific case, where he favours the sockpuppet, known for continued harrassment and wikihounding of an established user for 3 years, to the detriment of that established user. Please could you take a look at the SPI report on me (a declared account) and the two outstanding reports on Echigo mole. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)