User talk:Shazbot85: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:58, 11 January 2007

This user (Shazbot85) appears to be a sockpuppet for Shadowclan and other articale or users. Please keep an eye on him Mikemiddleton 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DelEx

I'm banned for some reason because of my use of this IP. This IP is at a university...I'm not sure what's going on.

Probably a member of the university has vandalised Wikipedia, and got the IP blocked. As you are using the same IP, you are also blocked. It's an unfortunate byproduct of the blocking system. If you are using AOL, your IP address changes regularly, so you will be able to edit again soon. —Daniel (‽) 19:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using AOL. This has been this way for some time. -Shazbot85 20:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can try using an {{Template:unblock}} template if you've been blocked mistakenly. Unfortunately schools tend to find some jerk who will abuse Wikipedia and ruin the privilege for innocent bystanders :( —Keakealani •Poke Me•contribs• 09:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your email: I think things should be fine. Persons on wikipedia don't get punished for the sins of others, except as collateral damage. Your edit history shows you are a constructive editor who respects policy, and as long as that remains true, all should be well. Feel free to call on me if you need me. (Note that I don't often check that email address, so it's better to write directly on my talk page.) --Anthony Krupp 13:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

helpme

Is there anyway to find information on creating user boxes on my page, or for creating the box that constitutes the table of contents on some other pages I've seen? -Shazbot85 23:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOX is a good place to start if you want information about userboxes. As for the Table of Contents, I believe that it is created automatically when the page reaches a certain number of headers. I don't know if it's possible to create a Table of Contents manually, so sorry I can't help you with that one. —Keakealani •Poke Me•contribs• 00:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Shazbot85, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Anthony Krupp 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test -Shazbot85^Talk 05:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External sources on Danny Yee

I added a good chunk, as you requested in the AfD. Would you take a look, and re-think your AfD comment? LotLE×talk 05:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I greatly appreciate your willingness to look at the notability issue a second time in light of my expanded description. I still think the article could be improved further, but I believe with several requests on the same lines from AfD commentors, I've greatly improved the quality of the biography over the last day. All the best, LotLE×talk 07:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meat puppet?

Acusations abound, that I am some sort of extension of Kmaquir1 because I was involved in some deletion discussions that he was involved in. I didn't even vote the same way as him because I totally disagree in some instances. Anything I can do to stop this crap? -Shazbot85^Talk 07:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, Shazbot85. We have observed similar behavior from Kmaguir1 in the recent past, so I took your vote with an initial excess of suspicion, simply because you attend the same school as Kmaguir1, have many similar interests, and had never voted in AfDs prior to his nominations. However, having seen your subsequent AfD votes—and especially your open-minded willingness to revisit an expanded article—I certainly do not think any such thing of you.

I am a bit curious whether your AfD interst was motivated by an invitation from Kmaguir1; to be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that if so. I, and most editors, frequently pay attention to specific issues at the invitation of other editors we have worked with. The only time it becomes inappropriate is when collusion replaces independent judgement, which is obviously not the case with you, even if you do personally know Mr. Maguire. All the best, LotLE×talk 07:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already replied on my own Talk page, but will add that this came up because of an anonymous IP vote. Usually on wikipedia, when an IP makes its very first contribution in an AfD vote, that is incredibly suspicious, and the cloud of suspicion can take a while to disperse. Your editing history shows different patterns than Kmaguir1, as well as the reasonableness and constructive additions that he has mostly (not entirely) failed to demonstrate.--Anthony Krupp 11:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC for Kmaguir1

As you'll have seen, there is a Request for Comment on Kmaguir1's conduct. Since you have been observing things, I wanted to let you know about this and invite you to comment on section three of that page, if you are so inclined. Feel free to copy the paragraph you just left on his page. Of course you should state whatever you think (as you have elsewhere). The page is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. Best,--Anthony Krupp 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see that you can respond in one of three spots: at 1.6 if you support the summary, at 2 if you think the summary is unfair, or at 3 if you want to give an outside perspective.--Anthony Krupp 23:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Jeremiah

I stumbled upon this AfD tonight and wanted your opinion. I'm trying to clean up the article and you seem to know what you are doing, any help would be appreciated. Bagginator 04:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some come from unknown publishers or no publishers. Getting a self published book sold on Amazon and B&N is very easy. Two examples 1) This one by David Jeremiah at Amazon.com is a new hardback for $6.00 with no publisher listed. 2) "DJ Publications" does not seem like a reputable publisher with 137 yahoo hits.

Shazbot85, instead of making snide remarks [1] expand the article and prove notablity. Arbusto 06:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DelEx

Why when others have done so handily? Shazbot85^Talk 06:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not one person has expanded the article. Not one person, other than a google count and amazon.com count, has provided any reason for notablity. And lastly, being civil is highly important. Arbusto 06:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the radio broadcasts prove notability to me. And I agree, civility is key and withdraw my comment. Shazbot85^Talk 06:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, that is a claim made by the pastor on his radio website. How about a independent source to prove it? If he is notable that should be easy to find. Arbusto 06:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could care less if the article is kept or not. But if you vote keep, and make a comment such as you did, add to it, clean it up, and demonstrate it is worth keeping. As of now its still sloppy, ill-sourced, and of dubious notablity. Arbusto 06:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His ministry's website is good enough information to me. If you feel like bringing up false advertising claims you'll have to contact them. I'm not to keen on him but I think he's notable, moreso than alot of the obscurities this encyclopedia includes. Shazbot85^Talk 06:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that my attempt to add sourcing was reverted. So please quit saying it is ill-sourced if you are going to revert the article after it has been sourced. I'm still not sure I agree with your comment that using Amazon as a source is necessarily an advertisement for Amazon. Amazon seems to be a good source that would provide excellent sourcing for books. So i'm suspicious of why Arbusto is asking for work to be done but then goes and reverts the work that was done. I'm not too keen to go back and work some more only to find Arbusto has reverted my work once again.Bagginator 06:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like bad faith editing to support his claims. Perhaps talk it over in the talk page and if he won't conceed to that, add it in anyway and contact and admin if he doesn't play nicely. Shazbot85^Talk 07:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I went to his talk and explained why I did it when I did it. I wrote reverted the partial Amazon.com links [2] because wikipedia does not offer business to book retailors. Imagine if every single book on wikipedia followed this suit; all books would be linked to one business. However, adding in the ISBN number, publisher, city, year, and page numbers would be good. Arbusto 07:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told him to add his links into the AfD page and I expect you won't touch them there. Your "business" claim sounds fairly absurd as he's not offering business, Sounds much like a cop out so you can exclude what he has provided. Shazbot85^Talk 07:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking an admin to get involved as a 3rd party to give their opinion. As i'm not sure about the Amazon thing and would like the opinion of someone not connected to the discussion. Hopefully they will answer soon. I'm not so much concerned about the article itself, except that i'd like to know for future reference how to properly source book material. I'd also like to clean up the article but not until this is resolved, I don't like to spend a lot of time working only to have it deleted. Bagginator 07:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take it here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and also read WP:AGF. Arbusto 07:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza Corner

Take a look at this if you have a chance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pizza_Corner -Kmaguir1 20:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blake911

Actually, I was referring to this diff. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 20:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calvinist userbox

Hi Shazbot85. I see you have made your own Calvinist/Reformed userbox. I picked one up somewhere that I have on my userpage. I'll post the code for it and the Presbyterian Userbox here for you.

This user is a Calvinist or Reformed Christian.

File:Presbyterian burningbush.PNG

This user is a Presbyterian.

You might also be interested in the categories Category:Calvinist Wikipedians and Category:Presbyterian Wikipedians. Blarneytherinosaur 03:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auto

WP:AUTO: You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. - this goes for clans as well, and recruting editors directly out of the clan volk to participate in writing the article about the clan just makes the case more worse. However alerting all who participated in the 1st Afd that a 2nd AFD is due is fine and considered good tone, as long you don't "select" which ones to alert. --Jestix 20:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nietherh ave i been involved in writing anything I'm related to, nor did i make a selection in alerting.

Signature

Hey, you stole my signature! :D The last time this happened the colors were reversed, such that my little talk button was green and my name blue, and that was stolen by a few dozen people too, hah. I just can't win, can I? :P Cowman109^Talk 19:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Standard AfD

When I said I wasn't calling your nomination a bad faith nom, I meant just that. I saw some potential for people to accuse you of making a bad faith nom and thought saying what I did would stem any such talk. Trust me -- I have made some AfDs that ended up being obvious keeps as well. I know it happens. Erechtheus 00:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Handling sockpuppetry

Please do not file reports at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets as you have done in relation to Blake911 (talk • contribs) without filing a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser first to confirm that sockpuppetry is indeed taking place. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets is only to be used only for tracking serial sock puppeteers whose identities have already been previously established. -- Netsnipe ► 16:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 15:58, 11 January 2007 edit Mikemiddleton (talk \| contribs) 46 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:58, 11 January 2007 edit undo Mikemiddleton (talk \| contribs) 46 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This user appears to be a sockpuppet for Shadowclan and other articale or users. Please keep an eye on him [[User:Mikemiddleton\|Mikemiddleton]] 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)		This user (Shazbot85) appears to be a sockpuppet for Shadowclan and other articale or users. Please keep an eye on him [[User:Mikemiddleton\|Mikemiddleton]] 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)