User talk:Saltine

Filter 238

Is anyone actively monitoring the log for this? Prodego ^talk 22:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am monitoring the log for it. Why do you ask? Evil saltine (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just clearing out unused, old, and non-worthwhile filters, and came across that one, and I wanted to make sure someone was monitoring it. Prodego ^talk 02:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

from Nawlin's Talk Page

so does that mean that if i put on the wikipedia article a article about the subject from any newspaper or television station (thats notable enough to be listed on wikipedia) that you guys wont delete my page? please resond on my talk page

-jedimaster3410

think i got it

could you do me a huge favor and look at these sites and tell me if they are notable enough so that my article doesnt get deleted again...

www.tomatoturtle.com/morningcall www.tomatoturtle.com/newsreviews (click on 69 News and you can watch the video if you so choose) www.tomatoturtle.com/buckscountyherald

Those are three newpaper/TV stations who did a piece on the subject of my article.....please post your answer on my talk page.....Thanks a lot

-jedimaster3410

Theantinawlin

Just fyi [1]  Chzz  ►  23:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Evil saltine (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

For your help with my userpage. -- Banjeboi 15:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Evil saltine (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocking

Please stop blocking people without giving fair warning first. You have no reason to believe that they weren't trying to make a good faith edit and accidently made a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.211.137 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that you're the same person who's been vandalizing User:Pepperpiggle. Evil saltine (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking my evil alter ego, vfp16! We've had serious problems with him on French Wikipedia. Vincent (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, lol. Evil saltine (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks II

Thank you for cleaning up. ;) This probably made them a bit angry... *hrhr* --Thogo (Talk) 10:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh no problem. =) Evil saltine (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sick of mE (band)

• ah ok well its up there now. i dont care about the images but that text took me forever to come up with and i was too tired to save it. thanks anyway ill be sure that if i do ever post an article on here ill read the guide lines first.Stich666 (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)stich666

No problem. The email has been sent. Evil saltine (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your expertise requested

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saltine cracker challenge -- please comment. JBsupreme (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, lol =) Evil saltine (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please salt Eric Zaccar

Hello, Saltine … Less that 24 hours after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar was closed as Delete, one of the sockpuppets - Robroams (talk · contribs) - has recreated it … I've tagged it with {{uw-repost}}, but would you please WP:SALT it? Thnx!

Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 (talk · contribs) _{00:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)}

I considered salting it, but I hope that won't be necessary. If it gets created again I (or someone else) will. Thanks! Evil saltine (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me what "Salt" means. I re-created the Eric Zaccar article, using more in-depth information and many more checkable references from major newspapers for one reason and one reason alone: I don't want people who google Eric to get a page that says that Eric's article has been deleted, and a link to the long diatribes that bad mouthed him. Again, a lot of money, time and energy has been invested in Eric's new screenplay and upcoming film, it's a very important story that could be a very important movie, and the last thing we need is a potential investor, director or star googling him and seeing the negative press that you've recently given him. Better to see nothing at all.

From the impression we "sock puppets" got, you didn't really want to delete Eric's article, you wanted to bring it up to your "standard." That's what I tried to do. It was flagged before anyone could have possibly had a chance to read it. Thank you.

Unless, of course, everything the editors were saying was crap, and you'd planned to delete Eric's article, all along, no matter how much contrary information we offered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 05:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: I tried to ask permission before I posted a new, more in depth article about Eric Zaccar, but even though you seem to indicate that messages can be sent to your editors through this site, trying to figure out how to do it is impossible. Everything said seemed to indicate to me that I could add a new article if I improved it.

Can I, Rob Stedelin, have my own article, if I'm the person who contacts my friends at several major New York news stations and has them do in-depth investigations on the self proclaimed editors of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroams (talk • contribs) 05:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For the n^th time, Robroams, CLICK THE LINK!!! … in this case, that would be WP:SALT … as for sending emails, those editors who have opted to have one available all have a E-mail this user link in the Toolbox section on the left-hand side of the screen … and once again, create a sandbox article in user space (click User:Robroams/Eric Zaccar to create it) then have some more experienced editors check it out before you post it in article space … and no, you can't have your own article on those grounds because anyone can edit Wikipedia, so there are no "self proclaimed editors" to investigate, but go ahead and contact your friends so that they can have a Good Laugh … as for Google pointing to a deleted page, that link will evaporate in a few days, so no one will see it (it may take longer now, because you recreated it) … in conclusion, if you're not smart enough to figure out how to sign your posts (or how to click the blue text to see what things mean), then maybe those people should not be investing in any enterprise with which you are connected. <Sigh!> — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Eric Zaccar & his Sock & Meat Puppets

This is in direct response to your editors who have called us "sock" or "meat" puppets, because we never edited anything, or gave our input on anything except one single article about Eric Zaccar.

Sophia Z's involved in a major project with Eric Zaccar. So am I. We're working with Eric Zaccar. Some of the other "sock puppets" are probably also people who are familiar with the work of Eric Zaccar and know that he's a rather talented and diverse writer who has thousands of fans and supporters in the New York area. So we all signed on to defend someone that we know, who we care about and whose work we are familiar with. That's the way it's supposed to be. I can't imagine why any of us, or anyone else, would want to do edits on people and articles that we didn't know anything about and that weren't involved in our personal affairs. We didn't sign on to promote Eric or to use your site (is it in fact YOUR site?) for publicity or public relations. We signed on to stop your site from bad mouthing him.

Again, in Brooklyn and Manhattan, where a lot of us come from, we grew up learning to mind our own business and not to bother anyone that doesn't bother us. Because ten people made comments on one subject and one subject alone means that this is the one subject that we have personal information about, that effects our lives and that we care about.

Our production company put together the financing for Eric to be able to spend months interviewing people, visiting prisons, reading court papers and records and traveling thousands of miles to research his screenplay, even though, as the many newspaper articles about his jury service will confirm, he probably already knew more about the subject than almost anyone. You know why? Because some people write what they actually know about. Some of your "editors" might want to consider taking a page from Eric (oh yeah, I forgot, you deleted that page because you were experts on Eric Zaccar and his work).

And of course I was kidding when I said I wanted my own article. I haven't done much yet to merit one. After this film, hopefully you'll come and solicit us. And yes, that's (kind of) a joke too. robroams

I understand that you have a vested interest in this person's career. Unfortunately, we had to debate whether he met the notability criteria. This often brings up judgments such as "minor" or "not significant." Our deletion discussion pages are tagged "noindex" to keep them from being indexed by search engines. I wish you luck with your project. Hopefully someday he will be notable enough to have an article. Evil saltine (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nehara Pieris

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nehara Pieris, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nehara Pieris. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama頭 16:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Saltine. You have new messages at 138.88.125.101's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Robroams

Hello again, Saltine … I've given up repeating myself, so would you please explain to Robroams (talk · contribs) why just typing their name is not in the spirit of WP:SIG? I really believe that they cannot find the "~" key on their keyboard, as demonstrated by this post … Happy Editing! — 138.88.125.101 (talk · contribs) _{23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)}

I would, but I don't know if it's really worth arguing over. Evil saltine (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done … looks like he finally figured it out! :-) — 138.88.125.101 (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If I understood these things, I would do them. NOBODY in my camp is deliberately trying to break your rules. We're trying our best to conform, and have been all along, but everything we do seems to agitate you more. My username is associated with my writings. What difference does it make how I phrase it?

(Robroams)

I'm sorry for being insensitive. The main reason is that the "~~~~" signature includes a link to both your user and talk pages, and a timestamp of when the comment was made. This makes it easier to keep track of discussions. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, nobody ever tried to deny that any of the user names that you called sock or meat puppets, were in fact asked by people on our team to come here and defend Eric. However, they're all legitimate people who know his work and were happy to do it.

If we really wanted to put the word out, we could have had a hundred defenders, but then, they all would have been people that just signed up for this purpose, and they all would have been accused of being puppets.

If you check at least one of Eric's Youtube videos, it's gotten over twenty six thousand UNSOLICITED hits. He does have a support base, however small and insignificant you might think it is. And he does have the distinction of being a writer who really gets involved in what he's doing, whether it's taking a job at the housing department to research his play or spending a year interviewing everyone around his jury case, visiting prisons and reading every court record and every article. If he could have interned for Bill Clinton when he was writing his play about Starr and Monica, I have no doubt that he would have (though he might not have provided the expected services).