User talk:Societyfinalclubs

DID I NOT SAY THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN IF WE LEFT THAT NONSENSE ON THE TALK PAGE!

This article in nationmaster,is in accordance with the CIA World FactBook, it is exactcly a piece what I have seen with my own eyes on micro film WORD for WORD, and if you had an article about this group before, and removed it thinking it was a hoax, you just destroyed a perfectly fine article- I suspect that your so called "Hoax" is coming from that stupid Theta Nu Epsilon talk page-that group is known to be trouble makers, that is what they are all about- destruction and trouble making.

Did I not say that this would happen if we left that comment on the talk page. I will not go on, unless my block is removed immediately.

Please do not be disheartened by the block. Admins are all people with whom you can reason, and there is plenty of leeway for you as I see it, as you have been quite WP:CIVIL. Work on the article as per the proposal below, and provide references. I hope you also have taken into consideration all the factors on which the previous version of the article was deleted. Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible solution

I must say, I have my doubts about the article. However, you do deserve a chance to work on it in peace. Therefore, I am going to move the article from the mainspace into your user space, at User:Societyfinalclubs/Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent‎. You can work on it there in peace, with no edit conflicts, and no speedy delete tags.

Once you believe it is ready, you can move it back to article space. Once in article space, it will be fair game for people to edit, tag, etc. If all you have is that one reference, I would advise against spending much time on the article, as it is a mirror of the old Wikipedia article that was deleted last year, and so does not count as a reliable source. It would probably be deleted as a receation of a previously deleted article.

However, if you do have reliable sources, and it is an improvment on the old article, then it will be a valuable addition.

If you agree, I will check with theblocking admin to see if he is OK with me lifting your block early, so you can work on the article in your user space. --barneca (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like my block lifted tonight- so I can have the opportunity to remove everything about the article- I want this article speedily deleted because I refuse to put any more effort on it after all that I did to fix things. Wikipedia can't handle the truth which the CIA Factbook confirms- I also want to take out info about the group from the collegiate secet society page- this group is beyond what people can handle- and from what I have seen, there is good reason why they were sub rosa- Lift my block, so I can make the proper edits, and close my contributions to Wikipedia. Societyfinalclubs (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are over-reacting. Wikipedia is built on people holding on to their disagreements and yet, acting in a civil and constructive way. Why dont you take up User:Barneca's proposal and bring the article up to the standards? If you need help, you can ask me. On the contrary, if you now feel, that the article should be speedily deleted, that is your call. Cool down and work on it. :) Prashanthns (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflcit)

Unblocking you so you can remove everything from the article doesn't make much sense. I know you're angry, but in my mind, we can go forward one of three ways.

I can delete the article right now, if that is what you want. You are the only significant author, and as it stands now, {{db-report}} probably applies. If that is what you want, an early unblock isn't needed, and, based on your anger, might not be a good idea.
Assuming the blocking admin concurs (I've left him a message), I can unblock you so you can work on the article in your userspace. It seems to me this addresses your complaints about the way the article was treated.
You can sleep on it, and make a decision in the morning whether you want to delete it or keep working on it.

Let me know. --barneca (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Per your contributions at User:65.150.33.24, I've deleted the article. If you change your mind, you can ask for it to be restored. You are welcome to come back and contribute once your block expires, but please review WP:3RR. Edit warring, even if you think you are in the right, is disruptive and results in blocking. If you had just left it at a {{hangon}} tag on the article, and not continually blanked the talk page, the article would likely still be up. --barneca (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for block

I think there could be a misunderstanding regarding the reason you were blocked. You were not blocked because someone suspected a hoax on the Skull and Crescent article, you were blocked because you continued to blank the talk page after many warnings. While the block was fair, your contributions have been greatly appreciated and I hope that once it expires you will continue to edit here. If you have any questions at all please ask me I would be happy to clear things up with you and can assure you that things can be handled reasonably. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment for you on the talk page of collegiate secret society final clubs- I believe you are in the right- and I know that all of the hoax stuff about S&C began with Theta Nu Epsilon last year- they are a very problematic group- I would like to see an S&C article added to the list. Keep your chin up, you know your stuff when it comes to this secret society topicJonesbig (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. If Jonesbig is not a sock of Societyfinalclub, I'll eat my hat. Someone else can file an SSP, I'm done. This gamesplaying is pathetic, and ridiculous, and I'd like the part of my evening I spent trying to help you back, please. --barneca (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sockpuppet, go check Theta Nu Epsilon's talk page- I have been following this situation for a long time.Jonesbig (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]