User talk:Natalie Erin

edit count | edit summary usage

Metalgearsolidportableops1001987489370419856hjkfacg hyuah?

Oy... HalfShadow 00:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I probably could, but not without getting spit all over my monitor. HalfShadow 00:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

A very belated congratulations on your sucessful RfA... :-) IronGargoyle 00:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and morality?

"Morality and responsibility are completely different things, and Wikipedia does try to be responsible. This can be evidenced by, for example, removing birthdates from articles on private individuals who happen to be notable. This is also evidenced in the fact that we oversight sensitive information, whether or not we know it is correct, because it would be irresponsible to leave it there. Natalie 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)"

Show me examples, please. I have been on Wikipedia since 2003. You need to show me policies (not guidelines) of such examples.

Also, Ms. Erin, Sun-Kyung Cho and Seung-Hui Cho no longer qualify as private individuals. WhisperToMe 00:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that my request is unreasonable, nor do I feel that I am pedantic. You are telling me that X is the case on Wikipedia. I am asking for proof of it. WhisperToMe 00:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, the living person policy came in due to legal/liability issues, i.e. Seigenthaler. This won't happen in Cho's case. WhisperToMe 00:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC) - The "Responsibility" rules you cited, in general, stem from legal and PR reasons. If Cho's family felt that the release of the e-mail stuff somehow violated them and they wished to sue groups, they would most likely get the media groups that released the info, not Wikipedia. Again, though, I doubt anything will occur because of the attention garnered. WhisperToMe 00:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Natalie, phone numbers are more sensitive than e-mail addresses and eBay IDs. A person may easily discard an ID and an e-mail, but not so much with a phone number. Natalie, Cho is dead. Cho's family probably will not suffer from anything that happens to his e-mail address and his eBay ID (which will not be used since Cho cannot bid on or sell anything). There is no purpose in trying to cover anything that is used. Anyway, taboo items like private phone numbers are easily, easily, EASILY extinguished with WP:OR.

I will also find the phrase about lack of usage of "tragedy," "tragic," etc. WhisperToMe 01:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually - we have three pieces of information:

• The eBay ID used in the purchase of weapons
• The Hotmail address used in the purchase of weapons
• The school-based e-mail address.

You may exclude the third, as it never had any importance.

However, the first and second were used to purchase weapons over eBay, so I would continue placing the info in the article. WhisperToMe 01:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, we never discussed that specific point. But I used that to make my claim that Wikipedia does not make editorial decisions using "moral" arguments. One secret I learned is that one can use a Wikipedia argument for a moral decision, i.e. you can bust phone numbers of private individuals with WP:OR WhisperToMe 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In order to open an account on eBay, one has to have an e-mail address. The e-mail address is used to facilitate the purchase of items bought on eBay. WhisperToMe 01:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people on WP made arguments on why not to include details such as the name of Cho's sister had the gist of "We do not want to ruin the family's life/Make anything harder for them." According to Merriam-Webster, "1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>"

Therefore people made the argument not to include the details was because they felt it was wrong to augment the media exposure to Cho's family. WhisperToMe 01:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the purpose of the e-mail account in the eBay relationship is to:

• Communicate with the buyer/seller
• Receive alerts of auction and bidding statuses
• Receiving notification of payment for items

WhisperToMe 01:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless Cho gave his password to his friends and family (Which is unlikely, since he probably did not want them to know that he was buying guns), I do not believe that anything will come of this. Now, if the media made a goof and stated an innocent party's e-mail address, we can take it down if we have notification that the media made the error. WhisperToMe 01:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Personal attacks"

Don't take his side in this. Sad mouse has done just as much personal attacking as I have. The fact that he initiated it should be reason to warn him, and not me. Besides that, he doesn't need to be coddled. I just don't understand this, if you whine to admins, you get your way? That seems utterly contrary to the whole premise behind Wikipedia. I thought the whole point was to allow the open exchange of information. But when you have pseudo-intellectuals teaming up against common-sense and facts, it suppresses good information for the benefit of propaganda and misinformation. But, it doesn't really matter because I know in due time, cooler heads will prevail. He has other business to attend to, like debunking all of Christianity.

Nevertheless, I realize that I now have to stoop to his level to get any sense of fairness. Sad mouse should be warned for unilateral reversions and deletions. Going against the heavy weight of discussions prior to his "straw poll," he re-added (multiple times) what a large number of users believed was irrelevant content to the Virginia Tech Massacre article. This is not to say that the content was completely unneeded, but it simply does not add any real value to this specific article. I added the "off topic" tag to that section to spark debate on the talk page. He did not like that, so he removed the tag, undid edits (not just mine), and reverted it every time anyone tried to do anything. He is trying to instill his own personal views into what is supposed to be an objective article. I am sick and tired of playing these childish games on here. You should either at least pretend to be neutral by taking this into account before you jump to conclusions about me, or you should be forthright with your own personal views and bias against anything that I am trying to do. Either way, in the spirit of openness and fairness, I should not be receiving 100% of the blame for this. I admit that some of it is probably mine, but I am not the only guilty party here. Rooot 05:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I never insinuated that he whined to you. Notice my word choice: "whine to admins..." He whined to other admins, not you. Nevertheless, the statement withstands scrutiny. I asked you the question regarding this policy. Since I do believe that you may actually be neutral in this, I will ask it again. Is it a policy for Wikipedia for those who whine to admins to get their way? Is ignoring consensus acceptable to promote a pro-globalism, anti-gun agenda? Is it ok for one person to take control of an entire section of an article? Rooot 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How does whether or not you ask leading questions have anything to do with this? Rooot 02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

NY Times

I think you've been doing yeoman's work on Virginia Tech massacre, nice to see you get recognized here. Congrats. Ronnotel 13:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow...brilliant work Natalie. Your name is spreading throughout the net. Welcome to that club. Feels good to be part of it, don't you think? :) Acalamari 18:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs up, from a member of the communications committee. You've been doing a great job in the article, and in the media. -- Zanimum 20:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo!!! - Alison^☺ 20:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

yeh, big up N.E. never seen you round here before the VT article but i've noticed you doing plenty of good to it. tomasz. 08:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am extremely impressed by your vandalism counter. Second, I've received two barnstars for my work on the shootings article and I come in second to you, so do you take 'em, and if yes, how many do you want and what kinds? --Kizor 21:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sunday Blues With Dar

I don't know what you are thinking but you must be under the influence if you think that page isn't just advertising for an am show. No offense intended, but anyone could see with a clear head it's all advertising. Good way to encourage the trolls on wikipedia. CINEGroup 02:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Then delete it and quit messing with it, I've been following that "users" edits from a number of falsified names, they all share common editing tactics. Sorry If I blamed you, I've been chasing this guy for the last 2 hours as he uses different names yet all the names magicakkly work on the same articles. CINEGroup 02:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

you'll see with my contributions, i only deal with new pages or clear cases of vandalism, and though i may tage them wrong ( I use {db-nonsense} if i dont know the correct term, the administrators have always nailed the person. Look through my contributions and see the last 20 or so I've made. Some are still there waiting to be kicked off. CINEGroup 02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Like this one [1]. I was part of the crew on that movie. This girl was an extra, one of of thousands. She is a lingerie model and is using a modeling website (the kind where you submit your own picture) as proof of her acting career. See the talk page CINEGroup 02:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a few more if you have time:

[2] [3] [4] CINEGroup 02:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read talk page on this: [5] I don't know how else to put it. The person created the article, uploaded an image and left wikipedia. Read the talk page. CINEGroup 02:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Offtopic Seung-Hui Cho talk page section

Talk:Seung-Hui Cho#selective mutism (not autism) doesn't appear to be heading in any relevant direction. What would be the appropriate thing to do? Phony Saint 03:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Phony Saint 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Natalie

Hey is your real name really Natalie Erin or it is just a nick name? King Lopez ^Contribs 09:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hey is your real name really King or it is just a nick name? - Alison^☺ 14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! lucky, you got your name in the New York TimesShindo9Hikaru 01:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How about

Letting the stub on Henry Methvin stand, if for no other reason, anyone should forget Wheeler and Murphy. There appears to be room for expansion. thanks. Kaltenborn

Cansaland

Cansaland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A possible Danny Daniel sockpuppet, see the hoax Pierre Le Treasure and the contribution to List of characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey. Squirepants101 00:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The user has made more contributions and made even more hoaxes like Jake Pegasus and Cartoon Idol (related to Fairy Idol, an article that some of Danny Daniel's sockpuppets like to edit). Squirepants101 19:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for Virginia Tech massacre

I've left a barnstar on your user page. Kudos on the incredible editing job. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

FightingFalcon changes

Natalie - I just got your message about vandalism on my user page. I'm sorry - I did those changes while not signed into my account. That IP address is mine and I was editing my own page. Sorry about the confusion. FightingFalcon 16:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi From the Foundation

Natalie, would you be interested in helping another reporter from the NYT? THey want to do a MORe feature length article on the topic you helped with (Wikipedia and current news.) I would really appreciate your help with this. (I'm sandy the communications manager.) Please email me directly at sordonez@wikimedia.org. This will be very cool story for us. :) Sandy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.86.239 (talk • contribs)

BOT reverting warning

i'll fix this right away, shouldn't have happened. Matthew Yeager 01:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting vandalism to my user page. --Guinnog 01:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

... & on mine! I am not part of the Zionist conspiracy—just an Associate Member. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too! I have to say, I've never been mistaken for a Jimbo sockpuppet before. CredoFromStart 21:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My my...

You're like a lightning rod for vandals, aren't you?

Keep up the good work! Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 17:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose some people get a kick out of disruption of any sort. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 17:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Blimey!

Thanks for reverting the vandalisation of my Talk page! Best --GuillaumeTell 18:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How many's that you've blocked? I've made tens and tens of reverts. GDonato (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Blog post

You may be interested in this blog post [6]. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dave Zarzycki

Hi. Just noticed that you deleted the article "Dave Zarzycki" on the grounds that it was a recreation of deleted material. Did you actually compare the original AFD with the edit history of the original page? Out of the five delete votes, four of them were placed before the version of the article I created. AlistairMcMillan 11:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A bunch of people (who I'm assuming were Dave's co-workers and/or friends) started an article about him. Someone nominated that article for deletion and four delete votes were placed. At the time those four votes were placed the article included such fascinating information as "his office has comfy couch and a Yosemite poster" and had an edit history full of edits adding facts like "he is single". At this point, I re-wrote the article from scratch, cited sources, and placed a keep vote. Someone else then placed the fifth delete vote, the only one that was placed on my version. Then the article was deleted. AlistairMcMillan 13:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"I can see how your version might address the notability concerns, but it does not seem clear cut enough to me." That's why I'd have preferred this to go to another AFD now, rather than having it speedied. C'est la vie. AlistairMcMillan 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RepublicanEagle

Natalie, I went ahead and unblocked this user (you blocked him totally appropriately indef as a vandal only account). He claims he stayed logged in and a friend vandalized. I am 50/50 on his sincerity, but trying to WP:AGF. Of course, I may totally be wrong here *sigh*. Anyway, I take responsibility for his actions after unblocking. We'll see how it goes, and if I'm wrong, please blank my talk and replace it with "DINA IS AN IDOT DIKE" or something of the kind ;). Because that always lets me know how wrong I am. Please let me know if you disagree strongly with my actions. Cheers. Dina 15:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Glen Helen article

Hey there, I agree with your comment marker on Glen Helen. I'll work on that this week or next to make it look better. Are you still in Yellow Springs?? I have been in Maine for the past few years and haven't made it back to Ohio. Best wishes! Ventric 20:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

CLIMACTION entry deletion appealed on Notabilty

Ruanua 12:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your help in restoring what is an important page! Hope you enjoy your time in my Dirty Old town of Dublin. Go to Grogan's and have a pint with Danny Rogers and Tommy Smith on me!

Ruanua 04:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Natalie Erin

One of my pages was deleted on contested grounds, documenting the Climaction coalition against climate change in New Zealand. [7]

How do we go about restoring it? There are entries for other eco groups too- Greenpeace, Earth First, Campaign against Climate Change. Other NZ eco groups that are just as young and numerically smaller than Climaction, such as Save Happy Valley Campaign Coalition have Wiki pages. Who can I appeal this deletion to?

According to JK the unwise-

'how notable is Climaction?'; Has it gained coverage in national press? Has it been written about in any mainstream political journals? Was it set up by/does it involve an activist/activists who are notable (and might have wikipedia pages allready)? Is it linked to/the sister organisation of any notable international group? etc.

If you think that you can demonstrate this level of notability then you can get a Deletion review, please read more info on that page.

According to Wiki guidelines on Notablity-

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

   * "Non-trivial" means that sources address the subject directly and no original research is needed to extract the content.2 It does not require that a topic be the sole focus of a source.
   * "Multiple" sources should be intellectually independent, and the number needed varies depending on the quality of the sources.3 In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.
   * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
   * "Secondary sources" draw on primary sources in order to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. The type of source material that can be used encompasses published works in all forms and media.4
   * "Independent" excludes works produced by those affilliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, etc.5

It involves many notable NZ activists and individuals from groups such as Socialist Worker, Radical Youth and the Greens and has been supported by notable people such as Sue Bradford, Laila Harré, John Minto, Simon Oosterman, Matt McCarten, Councillor Christine Caughey, Councillor Robyn Hughes [8], Grant Morgan and the Residents Action Movement who polled over 89,000 votes in the last city elections. It is connected nationally with the Climate Defence Network and works alongside Greenpeace Aotearoa, and has sisterly contacts with international groups such as Rising Tide and the UK based Campaign against Climate Change.

Climaction was subject of a TVNZ 15 minute documentary when Al Gore came to New Zealand [9], (the main and state broadcaster of television in New Zealand) and have had extensive coverage in the mainstream press and radio networks here, most notably for our work in organising the protest for the International Day of Action on Climate Change on Nov 4th 2006, and the Carmaggedon protest for Free and Frequent Public Transport on March 3rd 2007. Over a thousand people participated throughout the day at both events, which would be akin to 10,000 people particiapteing in a city the size of London or New York, relatively speaking.

Climaction article in the NZ Herald (Aotearoa's paper of record) [10]

Climaction article in the Aucklander newspaper (distribution in tens of thousands) [11]

Review of Climate Change UNITY in widely respected Green Left Weekly with history of CLimaction [12]

Prominent trade unionists and leftists support Climaction- quotes [13]

CLimaction reported on the Global Peace and Justice Auckland Newsletter (mail out 20,000 strong thru NZ) [14]

CLimaction civil disobedience supported by Auckland Regional Councillor [15]

American TV station in Manhattan covers Climaction protest for International Day of Action [16]

Biggest national Animal welfare group reports on CLimaction carnival [17]

Climaction protest covered by Global Climate Campaign website [18]

Critical Times review of "System Change not Climate Change" handbook sold by Climaction [19]

Climate Defence Network- list of supporting organisations in New Zealand (Climaction included) [20]

It has been written about in political journals with mass publication such as the Workers' Charter newspaper, the Unity journal (NZ's premier Marxist publication) etc.

Thanks RuaNua

FYI: Phi Kappa Psi

Discussion. —SlamDiego 06:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Block time.

Hello,

Recently, you placed a block on 84.208.129.54 for repeated acts of vandalism. However, it appears that information on how long the block will be in place is missing. How long will the block last? --Aarktica 15:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the timely response. Cheers. --Aarktica 19:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

well woopdi do

its funny they can attack me but i cant fight back. gotta love wikipedia. let him handle his own business. CINEGroup 23:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said:

[21] , ISpy and others. 3 of those WERE confirmed sock puppets, SWATJester then reverted their edits and called it vandalism.

see here and then gtfo. CINEGroup 23:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes hahahaha ISpy clrealy wasn't making any attacks at all! I'm going to change my name to Cho soon and just settle this. I'm from Ireland, your not from Ireland, your "boyfriend" isn't from Ireland. Meet me when you come to Ireland, I'll give you the history of the IRA. CINEGroup 23:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot block me for a dispute you are involved in and you are now invovled. I did not vandalise the page, I took out as another admin said, stuff not directly related at all to the conversation. Its a page cleanup, DEAL WITH IT. CINEGroup 23:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Any admin can block you for your trolling and personal attacks. She isn't involved in an editing dispute with you. IrishGuy ^talk 23:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

wtf death threat??? hahahaha oh what the fuck ever! CINEGroup 23:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

CINEGroup

While I doubt this is actually you, you should know that he is trying to post information about you [22]. IrishGuy ^talk 23:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote

I had just finished hunting down this for you, and copying and pasting -- "I’m hard put, sometimes-baby, it’s never an insult to be called what somebody thinks is a bad name. It just shows you how poor that person is, it doesn’t hurt you..." but now I see you already added it to your user page. LOL. That bit is such a perfect reminder for all of us who fight the daily battle against trolls and vandals. I'm going to add it here, too, under #44. Antandrus (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Joe bastianich

There is a growing consensus in the 'foodie' community that Joe Bastianich's appearances on his mother's show have devalued and debased one of the finest cooking shows on television. That criticism should be fair game for a Wiki entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.105.67 (talk)

I have no doubt that some people feel that way. However, you were phrasing the criticism in such a way as to make it sound like proven fact, and you did not attribute the criticism to a reliable source. If you'd like to see an example of the correct way to include criticism in an article, this section of Rachel Ray is a good example. Natalie 01:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Season 8

Hi, I was wondering if you had more time now and could give us a hand with our WP:SIMPSONS season 8 featured topic drive. We are so close and yet so far - There are 6 articles left that need to be brought up to GA status, but myself and Gran2 are burnt out after doing 15 or so in 2 weeks (plus I just finished exams). If you would be willing to help out, it would be much appreciated. Thanks for the time, Scorpion 01:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the remaining articles need a clean up - the Cultural refs section needs to be prosified and sourced, a production section needs to be created (and sourced) and the synopsis needs a clean up - it takes about an hour. But, anything you can do would be very helpful. -- Scorpion 01:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's no problem. Like I said, anything you can do would be great. -- Scorpion 01:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hey can you help me I am first sorry for the vandalism I did. but i want to know who to private message and aslo how i can get around the pages that are locked please help. thank you-- [pezhead333] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pezhead333 (talk • contribs)

Re: CSD AutoReason

Glad you like it. I fixed the typo on G12, and I also strove for a more standard form of capitalization (like in book titles) where you capitalize first and last, and any important word in between. If you have any more suggestions, don't hesitate to let me know ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, once I let it sit around for awhile and iron out any bugs and dependencies, I would like to eventually make a push to get this in Common.js so all admins have it by default. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I saw the user creation log minutes ago and saw that these sockpuppets (User:FCYTravis block, User:FCYTravis blocks, User:FCYTravis blocked, and User:FCYTravis on vvheels) came back to Wikipedia to vandalize, so I had a feeling that he might vandalize my user and talk page. Thanks for blocking these sockpuppets before my user and talk page might possibly be vandalized. Amos Han ^Talk 03:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Staples Edit

Thanks for fixing my edit. The page must have not fully loaded. It should be fixed now.
—Michael 11:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Further FYI

At Talk:Phi Kappa Psi, an editor has been creating a spurious impression of mass of opinion by using a sockpuppet account to express agreement with himself.

• As to the proof of sockpuppetry, please note the history of edits to Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Phi Kappa Psi, in combination with User:Samwisep86 claiming the first edit in that history for himself (subsequent edits to the mediation request were with the User:Samwisep86 account).
• As to the I-agree-with-him padding, please see:
  1. [23]
  2. [24]

—SlamDiego 13:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, and thank you. —SlamDiego 13:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been accused of having User:Rjproie as a sockpuppet. This is not the case. They and I are completely different users. Please Check our IPs, they are completely different. Samwisep86 18:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As I noted on the talk page for the article, in reply to your ostensible explanation for having claimed to have made the request:

An IP check would prove no such thing; pretty much anyone can edit from multiple IPs. What we have is assertion at 04:43 that you'd made the initial request, when your first edit qua User:Samwisep86 to the request page was made at 06:26. With the more than one-hour difference, you wouldn't then think that you'd made a request if you had merely edited a request made by another. And your edit history shows nothing else that corresponds to any ostensible request —SlamDiego 18:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Corcoran

There is a user with this IP address 86.40.153.4. ,that continually makes disruptive edits to Corcoran,I suggest you do something.I keep reverting it back and state real information,while this user edits uses false information and unreliable sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RepublicanEagle (talk • contribs) 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Sock Puppet Issue

natalie erin, I would like to clear up this sock puppet issue. please email me @ pdwinfre@loyno.edu so we can work this out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samwisep86 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I'd also like to clear up the sockpuppet issue, as I'm not a sockpuppet. Let me know what I can do. Thanks. RJ 22:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I will stipulate that it is not impossible that Samwisep86 misunderstood what he was doing such that he didn't realize that he wasn't making a mediation request, and Rjproie misunderstood that he was making a mediation request. In such context, Samwisep86's claim to have made a request demonstrably made by Rjproie would amount to a mistaken admission to being Rjproie, and later denial of having made the request would be smoke blown without the intention of blowing smoke. Further, it is not impossible that the inconsistencies of Samwisep86's later claims made in his defense were a product not of attempts to deceive but of panic and of more general sloppiness. —SlamDiego 00:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)