User talk:Redgator5
![]() | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. |
Talk Page
I will not tolerate malicious or vulgar comments. These comments will be read but deleted if they bear no relevance to Wikipedia or my user account. I will also not accept SPAM comments. Redgator5 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
![]() |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spindoctor69 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Matilda talk 06:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Traffic stats
Then I would suggest we take the article back to the stats of 17 September per WP:NOTNEWS - we are not going to update these stats daily or weekly and I am concerned at the POV pushing that updating the stats indicates - in fact I think the volatility of the stats is an interesting point and I am really genuinely curious about why Mauritania - what does it mean. I don't think the information is too long, even in proportion to the article. We have an assertion about Japan but in fact we are talking Mexico, India and Spain after Mauritania. As a matter of interest, given WP:BIAS, those stats (if they could be explained especially), would be an argument for keeping the article.--Matilda talk 00:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I do know about the tool bar and do have some understanding of how Alexa works. The trouble is Alexa was being used as a criterion for notability - eg in this message . The article references are inadequate. The closure of this AfD as "no consensus" means deletion can be raised again - and I will do so if no sources materialise - for example the to-date-phantom Norwegian article. The current references do not establish notability according to our guidelines (WP:CORP and/or WP:WEB ) - and the point you made about it meeting WP:WEB criterion 3 is not a sustainable argument - you have not interpreted that citerion correctly in my view. If a country that has just been through a coup and is not noted for its fishing industry is variously the biggest user or the second biggest user according to a reasonably valid tool - a tool moreover that was cited for notability by Spindoctor69 - then .. what can one conclude? --Matilda talk 01:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am more than happy to wait for one month or so for good sources to materialise. I will follow the development of the article with interest.
There was a suggestion that the Norwegian article would be published within the week. It would be good if it were available (and online) - I willbablefish ithttp://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=Norwegian&to=English (bablefish doesn't do Norwegian :-( ) to ensure the gist of the article matches the claims attributed to it, or the claims the article is cited to support.
I certainly appreciate that it may be harder for some web sites to establish notability than others even though they are actually more significant. It amazes me there are no sources other than trivial mentions or those that do not meet our WP:RS guideline. Aren't there fishing industry magazines that woould be mention it? Obviously the industry is very large, if the site is important - and I can't see why it isn't: it looks important/useful when I view it - why is it not discussed anywhere? I am sure I would have no difficulty in verifying say the importance of the Sydney Morning Herald, if its notability was challenged, with many many external references. I appreciated the web is different but this site has been around for 12 to 13 years.
I genuinely don't understand. I am not trying to be hard to get on with deliberately. --Matilda talk 04:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am more than happy to wait for one month or so for good sources to materialise. I will follow the development of the article with interest.
September 2008
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Comments such as this will get you an instant blocking on the next occasion - comment on the material not on the editor. Okay? --VS talk 12:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Why - Why penalize me and not the other user who makes constant rude and sarcastic comments?Redgator5 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Stop_x_nuvola.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola.svg.png)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Redgator5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am appealing a block due to shared IP: Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block. Sockpuppetry is if it is the same person not the same internet conncetion. If I share accomodation with someone how can I be to blame for that person's misstakes. My approach is completely different to the other user, and obviously we are going to edit some of the same articles since obviously, we have things in common. However, if you look at my article edits, they are constructive edits (appart from one on the talk page of Matilda, which I accept may have been innapropriate. By all means, block this other account, not mine. Instead of nit-picking the tiny details of things which I may or may not have done wrong, why don't you focus on the edits I have made and assume good faith as is the Wikipedia way.Redgator5 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Edit patterns match; see WP:GAB#Sockpuppetry and Checkuser-based blocks. — Sandstein 22:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Fish Info and Services
Hello, I noticed that you had input in a previus deletion discussion. The article looks like it may be deleted by the same group of people who started the first discussion, without imput from you or others who contributed previously. I thought you may liketo know.