User talk:Hamster Sandwich

Thanks for your note, and your contributions. Firstly, to answer your question, no, it's no longer simple to give you credit for an anonymous edit. Please read Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit; it has not been possible for a while, and may have been complicated by our recent software changes. You may leave your request there, but understand that it may not be implemented for a long time, if at all.

Secondly, it appears that your contribution may be duplicating the effort at Paul Williams (architect) -- please have a look there, and see if your work can be integrated into the existing article.

Thirdly, welcome to Wikipedia! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (Hunter 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (Hunter) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! — Catherine\^talk 06:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Ephemera

Archive 1(16/07/05)Archive 2(30/09/05) Archive 3(21/07/07)---

re:

hello Hamster Sandwich. do you believe the material inserted is not original research? who says the incident has anything to do with persecution of Jews, or with killing Jews because they're Jews? certainly not any academic sources. if reliable sources do not forward this claim: why are we? i am sure WP:V and WP:OR are clear cut on this: we relate precisely what sources say, in the context they say it, and nothing more. it isn't upon us as editors to decide what is and isn't persecution... don't you agree? regards, ITAQALLAH 00:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the situation is that is up to us as editors to arrive at some kind of concensus. Failing this, we must look to an impartial peer review for a decision which may be more or less binding on all parties involved in the dispute. I have read the repartee responses on the article's talk page and I feel rather unsettled by the ad hominum tone which it is taking. My sense of this is that the editors most currently active on that page may have reached the point of intractability and may need a third party to look at the issue. This should happen sooner rather than later in my opinion. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 01:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Complete re-write

Hi Hamster Sandwich,

This edit [1] completely replaces the whole article with another version?!! --Aminz 22:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Was that meant? --Aminz 22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it was a mistake I made while I was going through the history of the article. I was looking for the original VfD notice, since there has been mention on the talk page about bringing this article to a deletion discussion. I found a broken template and tried to repair it, but inadvertently restored a previous version of the article. I have restored to the version I found before my initial edits of 20/07/07. Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 01:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Have nice times Hamster Sandwich, Cheers, --Aminz 07:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

SEIU Local 1.on and User:UnionPride

Hi HS. I think you're right by going to the first level warning here. Unfortunately, it seems to be the direction this is headed. I left one last polite message on the off chance that it isn't. Cheers, --Bookandcoffee 17:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

User:67.165.246.163

That seems fine. I'm not surprised that article flares up from time to time. It seems like anything relating to religion on Wikipedia is always a constant battle. I suppose we're just a microcosm of the larger world. Natalie 23:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The vandal

Actually, it wasn't me: Luna Santin blocked them; I just put the template in. :) Acalamari 23:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll leave it there; maybe it'll teach them to stop vandalizing, we'll see. Acalamari 23:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pie

Ha! Thanks for the laugh. A sense of humor is definitely needed here, isn't it. Cheers,--Bookandcoffee 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, more than a little. On the other hand, I have come into contact with many genuinely intelligent and erudite persons through the project. We take the bad along with the good (and sometimes great). Keep up the good work you do, noble wiki-warrior! Hamster Sandwich 20:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

re The Sandwich of Errornous Erraticism

I obviously write thinner than I am, but I thank you all the same! LessHeard vanU 12:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hope you had a nice vacation. Though I have to note I find your comment slightly odd considering that RfA closed over 24 hours ago. — Edokter • Talk • 00:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lemmy award

Hello, you once gave me the prestigious "Lemmy Kilmister Public Service Award", which as a young Wikipedia editor I was quite honored. Recently the image used for that award was deleted, which prompted me to resurrect the award in a more formal matter here User:DeadEyeArrow/LemmyAward. If you have any objections of restarting the award there I would gladly remove it. Thanks. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Interview

I am trying to find a wikipedia administrator who would readily do an interview for a research project I am conducting from the perspective of a wikipedia insider. If you'd like to do this, please email me at goat77 (AT) gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goat77 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

¡Hola!

Hi! The Spanish comment you noted on my talk page, "hola pincha puta," is vandalism.... it means "hello skanky whore" or something like that. :-S FreplySpang 23:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your name

You have SUCH a cool name! Abce2 (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Abce2 Stop and visit

		The Special Barnstar
		For having such a cool nameAbce2 (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Abce2 Stop and visit

Tampan Mafia Language

Thanks for double checking google.

The link you posted : http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080810/ARTICLE/808100348?Title=Gotti-arrest-has-Tampa-in-Mafia-territory-again

If you read the newspaper article, and see what we had on the wikipedia article (before i removed it), the language is practically identical. The newspaper article states : "Authorities credit the Trafficante family with creating a mob language known as "Tampan," a hybrid of Italian and Spanish created to confuse police." Wikipedia had "The Trafficante family was also credited for creating the language known in the old mafia days as "Tampan." Tampan was a language of an Italian/Spanish dialect. It was spoken by the Mob mainly because the police could not understand the language." I just checked revisions for Trafficante article, and this paragraph about Tampan has been around since at least January 2008. The article from Tribune was written in August, 2008. Chances are, the reporter just rephrased the information from wikipedia. I've been reading about mafia for a long time, lived in Brooklyn and Tampa, and this is news to me. I will look on google some more maybe "mafia tampan -tampa", but for right now lets remove this Tampan unless either one of us finds something concrete. What do you say?Meishern (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Five Points article is yours? nice! i read it a number of times. When I was looking for exact location of 5 points in china town, i had print out of article. nice work! Meishern (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your note

I have no idea how that happened, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. Crum375 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I'd be offended if you didn't watch my page. :) And yes, by all means, please jump in to help. It's nice to see your name, as always. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I do have one of your sandwiches, thank you —from August 2005!—though without seeming ungrateful it doesn't look much like To-furkey. But I threw my principles to one side for you, because it was much appreciated sustenance from a very nice and much appreciated person. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: My talk page

Hello! I don't often communicate through talk pages like this, so when you said to get back with you, I didn't know if that meant on my talk page or on yours. ...Anyways, I did reply on my talk page.

If you could, I'd appreciate it greatly if you could clear up for me "proper etiquette" as far as communication on talk pages goes. Thanks ahead of time! ---Debollweevil (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it would simply be a waste of my time.

The user in question is a proxy IP of a banned user, in fact he's one of many. Proxies do not deserve to be given good faith. HalfShadow 23:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

He's referring to exactly the same things other IPs are and whenever he gets caught, he switches to another IP. It's a moderately extensive list. I was of the impression that reverting an edit from a proxy IP being used by a banned account didn't apply to 3RR. I've read you message since about not worrying about it, but I'm making my point anyway. The IPs are 89.108.146.125 (talk · contribs), 212.102.0.104 (talk · contribs), 83.231.206.193 (talk · contribs), 24.54.202.242 (talk · contribs) among others. Most of them have been already blocked as proxies. HalfShadow 23:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ridgecrest user

Until today I assumed that the IP was just a relatively new user. However I followed up on the posting by user:Synchronism who said that the IP was really banned sock master Michael93555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Michael Zinke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Upon reviewing his edits, it appears that this user is energetic and devoted to Wikipedia but is also vindictive and prone to harassing users and making personal attacks. Rather than promising to reform, the user is pretending to be someone different and is engaged in unhelpful behaviors. I'm afraid that remediation is unlikely to succeed, as Wikipedia is not therapy.   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Contact

You don't appear to have email enabled. Please email me as soon as possible, preferably using the special:emailuser feature so I can be sure who I am talking to. (You may need to set your own email address to do this, but once we have made contact you can remove it.) Thatcher 13:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Weird edits from IP

Hi HS,

Would you look at the edits done by 88.199.253.216 IP. The IP tends to clip articles in half despite multiple references and skew them POV. I wouldn't call it vandalism, but ripping out 1/2 of a references article (Alexander Pechersky) (i reverted that one) and removing vital information from another (Nadezhda Chaikova) (reverted also) to make it again significantly shorter and with a slant seems to go against the grain of WP. Referenced content should be added, not removed. Thanks for listening. Meishern (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the sandwhich. Though I would rather eat or display it than wear it. It would get a little messy. :)Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 00:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretties for me?

Thanks! It's always nice to have my Huggling (?) appreciated. Just one question though: should I fry the egg or hatch it? I vote scrambled. Cheers! -sesuPRIME 03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I might suggest two slices of lightly buttered, toasted multi grain bread. makes a very nice sandwich. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what you'd do? So I guess that means it's a hamster egg? -sesuPRIME 03:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have laid more than one egg... Hamsters eat their young (talk)

How eggsistential! (Sorry, couldn't resist. Actually I could, I was just unable to think up anything better than a dumb Team Rocket-style pun.) -sesuPRIME 04:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Now I know about Team Rocket! I should go check the JPL webpage to see if they have something on them! Hamster On A Half Shell

Poké-bondage?? I'm lost. -sesuPRIME 05:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Hi HS, the long version was added by a single-purpose account at some point, then reverted to by various anon IPs. It's far too long and detailed, and bits of it look as though they've been copied from elsewhere, because the writing is very mixed: a well-constructed sentence is followed by a badly written one, and so on. I'll take a look over the next few days and start putting sentences into google books to see if I can find the sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to take a look at Martin Hartwell, but I'm a bit backed up at the moment, so it might take a couple of days, if that's all right. Give me another prod if I've not done it by then. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at SEIU Local 1 Canada. I wouldn't have a clue what to do about that, sorry. It's quite close to your last version if that's of any comfort. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Request to delete SEIU Local 1 Canada's wiki article

I am a communications representative who works for SEIU Local 1 Canada and I am requesting Wikipedia delete this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEIU_Local_1_Canada. It’s an attack page and its sole purpose is to portray SEIU Local 1 Canada’s history, reputation, and outreach efforts in a negative manner. The article contains numerous claims, accusations and controversial charges that cannot be backed up with evidence from a reputable source.

The author, located at this address: 64.229.202.135, portrays SEIU’s history in a very negative light by focussing on how it was raided by another union 10 years ago. It also attacks the Local’s President Sharleen Stewart, Ms. Stewart’s family members, Local 1’s servicing record, SEIU’s organizing efforts, and past labour disputes. Aside from a few neutral statements in the first paragraph and the section “after the raids”, most of the article portrays SEIU Local 1 Canada as an autocratic, corrupt, inefficient labour union that doesn’t, in this person’s opinion, service its members properly.

In the first and second paragraphs, and the sections “Before the merger” and “Raiding season,” the entire focus is on the raid. SEIU has had a presence in Canada for over 60 years and has many successes to its credit but the article makes it sound like the only important aspect of SEIU’s past was the raid. Furthermore, our Local is often viewed as a victim of this raid, and didn’t deserve the actions that took place. Other important aspects of SEIU’s history can be found here for your reference: http://www.seiulocal1.org/aboutus/seiuhistory/Default.aspx

More erroneous claims include:

The presidency of Sharleen Stewart. This entire section attacks Ms. Stewart. It claims “To date, she has yet to stand before the membership of Local 1 in a fair and democratic election.” This is untrue. She was elected for a four- year term at its provincial convention in Windsor, Ontario in 2007. Source: http://www.seiulocal1.org/Assets/AssetContent/2db63bb0-66b4-499a-b975-bc173eab2d66/546bfa9e-94e2-495f-9d30-54cc81f55e47/8d07ca8d-a219-4a16-bbc1-992b835bdddb/1/Report_to_Membership_2007.pdf on page 10 under the section “Hometown Welcome”.

In the sections addressing SEIU’s servicing, organizing, and the 2007 strike, the editor makes accusations that are inaccurate and mischievous. Nor does the editor provide any footnotes to support his/her accusations. It also unfairly attacks SEIU staff members.

If you ask the editor to cite a source to prove their allegations, the editor will probably cite this document: http://www.labourtalk.org/forms/SEUI_Canada_History_Merger.pdf. If you read over this document and compare it to what has been written in the Wikipedia article, it’s almost identical word-for-word. The problem with this source is that it’s not a credible source.

First, it’s a self-published, un-authored document. There is no way to verify what other documents they have written and published. Nobody knows who wrote it. Nor does it contain any footnotes or bibliography to back up any of the accusations they make. This self-published document is also an attack on a third party.

Unfortunately, the editor is not interested in any form of cooperation or has demonstrated any willingness to discuss the facts in question. This author wrote me a message saying:

“Brother or sister, I don't think it will look very good if the media learns that someone in the SEIU Canada office is trying to whitewash the union's wikipedia entry. Stop it.” The evidence is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:209.161.219.90&redirect=no

This editor has also made changes that other editors have made to this wiki article. Someone named bookandcoffee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bookandcoffee, had tried to edit SEIU Local 1 Canada’s article several times but the editor kept on re-inserting their attacks on SEIU back into the article. The editor seems quite insistent to post their version of SEIU. The evidence is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SEIU_Local_1_Canada

I realize I engaged in an “edit war” with this persistent editor. I did not know this was violating Wikipedia’s editorial standards.

I believe Wikipedia is a place for people to learn. It is not a place to attack other people, organizations or ideas in an uncivil and unfair manner. I hope you will agree with me that this article should be deleted.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.219.90 (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Pretties for you...

Thanks for the award! Any articles in particular that it relates to? Lugnuts (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

re:Fake facts

Hey, Hamster Sandwich! Yeah, placing an inactive template atop the user page would work, and maybe adding {{user page}} too would help avoid further confusion. -sesuPRIME 12:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Thanks for the kind words, and thanks for keeping an eye on the article. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 04:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Block of foul-mouthed anon

You're welcome. He had been reported to AIV; that's why I blocked him. Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Instruments of torture

Hm, not sure what to think about the comparison... do you want to tell the contra to its face it sounds like a cracked cello? I sure don't...

I wish it were my contra, but it belongs to Stetson University: I don't have access to it anymore (sigh) but I believe it's a Fox. (The bassoon on other recordings is also a Fox, model 220, and also Stetson's: I have a 201 now that I haven't recorded with. The viola is a Chinese student-model no-name...) Cheers; nice to hear from you. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 05:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Un-sugary goodness

Well, thanks! :) I have to say, it's nice to have a refreshing bite of a sandwich after having to chew on those barnstars and cookies... blech! Thank you! Master of Puppets 13:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You saw Metallica in the 80's? Words cannot describe my jealousy. I would kill to have been alive back then! As for the user page stuff, feel free to liberate as much as you want! :) Master of Puppets 04:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Hershey's S'mores Milk Duds Deejay Hallowed Be Thy Name Billpoint Herne Bay, New Zealand Krackel Hate to Feel Bust-A-Move Pocket Mr. Goodbar Grind (song) Puzzle Bobble 4 5th Avenue (candy) Dunvegan Splenial Dio Westbound Records Thugs Good & Plenty

Cleanup Heart (band) Strike action Me and Bobby McGee Merge Jugal Vinaigrette King K. Rool Add Sources Labour movement Kelly Shoppach Heath bar Wikify Amber (performer) SEX (boutique) Kid Rock Expand The Exploited Michigan Women's Hall of Fame The Autobiography of Malcolm X

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Endured

I like it. J04n(talk page) 02:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

and thank you very much, I'm touched and honored J04n(talk page) 04:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal

Hello! Personally, I think that 66.183.251.59 should be blocked for about 2 weeks. I don't think this user should be indef blocked 1. He/she has not reached the actual 5 infractions of policy. 2. Some vandals have the potential to actually be a good contributor, they just need motivation from other editors. This editor doesn't seem to be that "type", but it's worth a try.

My thoughts --Addihockey ^(t/c) 23:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess so, I hate it when my userpage is vandalised. Thank you for your compliments on my contribs - I've had some MediaWiki experience prior to Wikipedia on YPPedia... I'm trying to become an admin on this wiki so I could do my share :). Nice user page by the way, I play guitar too! --Addihockey ^(t/c) 02:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with racism

This comment[2] was interesting. I think that's a good idea, within limits. Some kinds of racist comments and vandalism have absolutely no innocent excuse - the person doing it knows it's against the rules and does it anyway, usually a series of several different racist messages to one or more articles after which they quickly get bored, so warnings are not really helpful. Might as well give a short block on first sight without warning. I guess that also applies to other kinds of bigoted comments as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at User:JakeL1693

If this shouldn't earn them an indef block I don't know why not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:We blocked the same guy...

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

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Greenberg

I had responded on my talk page, but as there was no response, I'll copy here: Nfitz (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking now [3]. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I read the discussion, and I note that the other editor, User:Hrafn has submitted two versions of the article; your version, and one he claims for himself.

I would prefer to see the Daniel Greenberg article remain in the knowledge base, and I would choose to keep this [4] version, at least as a starting point (for what is essentially a stub article about a somewhat notable educator.) The information is essentially unchanged from your edit, but if you're asking for an opinion, it comes down to the prose writing style of the version that I prefer.

If anybody wants to see this article Kept, Merged, or Deleted, I am considering listing this at WP:AFD just to get a broader input from uninvolved editors. Ideas or comments are welcome in this space. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly tied to one version or another, and have no concerns about the prose itself. The one concern I have with that version is that it relies on a single source ... and yet at the same time User:Hrafn has compained about a lack of independent sources, which is why my preference has been for this [5] version; more for the references than the prose. I'm not actually sure that User:Hrafn is particularly tied to the single-source version, as I noticed he has again removed the Daniel Greenberg page and merged it to Daniel_Greenberg#Daniel_A._Greenberg, but with 3 references instead of 1. (isn't remerging the article in question after a reference to WP:ANI bad form?}? So what's the process here then ...? Nfitz (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad IP block

HamsterSandwich, I don't think I've had any encounters with you in the past, so I feel a little awkward bringing this up, but: No matter how much you want to, or how much you think they deserve it, you just can't block IPs indefinitely like that. There have been cases where an IP seems static, and in those cases, generally an admin goes on AN or AN/I to discuss an indef block. However, there's not enough evidence for that just yet. If that same IP keeps up the misbehavior and we see a clear pattern of similar actions, then we should talk about a longer ban--but even in the worst cases, I don't think an indef ban is generally an option.

Honestly, from reading that talk page, I think the best thing you could have done would have been to ask another admin to block; it was pretty clear that you were in a dispute with that IP about what he was doing, and that you used the block to "win" the argument. Again--that's not a good use of tools. I'm going to reduce the block to 1 week--long enough to prevent him from continuing his poor behavior, but short enough that if the IP is dynamic, it shouldn't catch the next guy in its net.

I apologize if I've stepped on your toes with this action, but I feel very strongly that this block was excessive and out of policy. If you think I did wrong, I'm open to discussing it and to getting outside opinions. Thanks... GJC 19:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Request to delete SEIU Local 1 Canada article

Hi Hamster Sandwich. Thank you for weeding out some of the untruths and unreferenced material in the original piece. But I respectfully ask Wikipedia again to delete this article. This article remains an attack page with a lot of untrue and negative information on SEIU.

Aside from the first two sentences (which his still incorrect because we have 46,000 members) everything beneath it focuses solely on the worst period of SEIU history, talking about how SEIU was raided, attacking SEIU International President Andy Stern and accusing the union of autocratic behaviour and other unfair charges.

Where is all the positive information about SEIU, their members and their achievements? SEIU was the first union to organize hospitals in Ontario when most unions felt it was too difficult. SEIU has grown by 25% since 2004. SEIU helped bring about pay equity laws for women in Ontario. SEIU is the largest home care union in Ontario. SEIU is one of the largest unions representing nurses in Ontario. Women make up about 75% of our membership. SEIU strongly supports anti-racism and anti-sexism initiatives. I could continue, but I think you get my point.

If you review the Local 1 Canada Servicing section, again, nothing is true. Where is the evidence supporting the author’s controversial charges? Where is the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) documents supporting the accusation that an average of 13 charges a year were laid against SEIU? Is there any evidence proving SEIU is much worse than other unions? Until they provide that information, this section should be removed.

Most of the information on the Strike of 2007 is incorrect. The field staff at SEIU went on strike for a variety of reasons. Can the editor provide Wikipedia with documentation proving that the use of scab labour and job relocation is the primary reason why staff went on strike? Is there any evidence supporting the charge that management “capitulated” to the striker’s demands? The facts are that staff and management worked out an agreement and a new staff contract was ratified. But there is no evidence to support any of the charges they are making.

This article was faulty from the very start. It was originally created as an attack page. Although Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines prevent me from editing the page, why aren’t the same guidelines placed on 64.229.202.135? Does this person’s background and experience with SEIU present a conflict of interest with Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines? It’s unfair that one individual, who could be a former disgruntled employee, an angry member, a PR person from another competing union, or someone from an anti-union consulting firm, whose identity cannot be uncovered or verified, has the freedom to create attack pages on Wikipedia without any consequences.

SEIU Local 1 Canada is just one local out many in Canada. The vast majority of union locals, even some that represent tens of thousands of workers, do not have their own Wikipedia entries. SEIU Canada, the national union, does not even have its own Wikipedia entry. Why should SEIU Local 1, a mere local, have a Wikipedia entry?”

This page was not created to provide objective information on SEIU Local 1 Canada. Please consider deleting this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.219.90 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Editor Review

Hi since you indicated interest in my RfA, I'd like to point out that I have requested an editor review. If you don't want to review me for any reason, that's okay :). But if you would, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! --Addihockey10^{(review me!)} 03:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey again! Thanks for the review! Other than writing an article which I plan to do today; is there anything else you would like to have me do before requesting adminship? Once again; thanks! --Addihockey10^{(review me!)} 18:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Malta

Hey there. The article details information found in the New Testament concerning St Paul's stay in Malta. It gives context to this with details about Malta's earliest Christian catacombs, and the identity of Publius, Roman Governor to Malta at the time. It's all rather interesting, and you may like to supplement your childhood reading by exploring it further ;) regards, Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A question

Are you a sandwich of hamster or a sandwich for hamster? Inquiringly, Jehochman ^Talk 16:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Nixon

Can you cite where Nixon actually makes the comment found on your userpage? Or is it just something you made up? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Winter wonderland

Hey, it warmed up to -15 it was -27 the other day and has mainly been around -20 but of course the warmer weather brings the wind. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 05:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh great a BLP, as far as I know he's still alive, about cannibalism that is poorly sourced, though it's not a disputed thing. I found this which is a bit better than what is in there. I'll have a look around and see if I can find some better references. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 06:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You could well be right. There doesn't seem to be a lot available on him. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm working night shifts and didn't get up in time to check the local library. I then forgot to look in the paper copy of the Canadian Encyclopaedia to see if there was anything. This was big news at the time. I even recall that we heard about it in Britain. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 06:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Found just enough to cover the main problem, here. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 06:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Must admit that it's not the greatest of references but it should do for now. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

re:unusable

you've posted a message in reply to my comments. I started editing wikipedia more or less when it started, and stopped completely in 2005. I am well aware of the policies. I don't know anything about trade unions; that is why I was reading the page. But I was able to spot its very low quality.

A fresh start is needed on that article. The grammar and structure are appalling. People who know the subject and are able to write cogently about it are needed, and they need to be allowed to do so without interference. But I suspect there are few of those left these days; My own area is science and, as I say, I gave up a number of years ago. 76.109.129.235 (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Books Found, but not the Text

I was reading excerpts from the book "Of Seals and Men: A History of the Newfoundland Seal Hunt" by James E. Candow, 1989. In this book it is shown that in the early to mid 20th century Norwegian vessels and landed seals outnumbered Newfoundland's in the hunting grounds of "The Front". I have a question; does one have to be able to find the exact text from the book on-line in order to cite it as a reference in the wiki-article, or is the title, author and date of publication enough to use it as a ref.? --XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinion needed on E&Q Seal Hunting

Was wondering if you could lend your opinion and support on the following recommended edit. Done by yours truly, in the Seal Hunting article, See that ALL, phrases have been cited, specifically to the section of the said reports, and my recommended grammar trumps the current, both in references and writing style.....at least I hope. =) check the "Equipment and Methods" title under the Discussion section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seal_hunting#Equipment

Regards, --XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I left a message for you in the same section a few days back. Please review. Thanks. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:User talk:Intelligentsium#Withdraw tag

Do you mean that you are withdrawing the AfD? Intelligentsium 01:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You can simply close it normally, providing withdrawn as a reason. I have done this for you, per WP:NAC. Intelligentsium 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

SEIU Local 1 Canada

Hi Ham,

Thanks for you work and concern about the SEIU Local 1 page. I apologize for not being more engaged, but I have been unable to spend much time here. I think it is the right choice to not AfD the article - but I agree it is frustrating to see it in obvious disarray.

Cheers, --Bookandcoffee (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jim Dandy and Ruby Starr

After looking at some video clips of Jim Dandy Mangrum on YouTube, I'm wondering if perhaps he didn't stuff a sock down below, seeing as all the band members were similarily well-endowed. Hmm....Remember Elvis and his toilet paper roll? Ruby Starr was wild!!! She makes Madonna and Lady Gaga seem like Sunday School teachers in comparison. I prefer the real thing, not all this contrived sexuality such as Madonna, Britney Spiers, Lady Gaga, Pink, etc. People like Jim Morrison, Black Oak Arkansas, Ruby Starr, Keith Richards, Brian Jones, and Janis Joplin all truly lived/live the rock lifestyle, unlike others who present a raunchy, avante-garde sexual persona onstage, then go home to their luxurious mansions and work out with a personal trainer in their state-of-the-art gyms whilst sipping bottled water.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me?

Are you an admin? If so, reply back to me so I can ask you a question —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzyhair2 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Hamster Sandwich! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 937 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Jack Douglas (record producer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New wikipedia article for SEIU Local 1 Canada

Hi Hamster. It’s Greg from SEIU Local 1 Canada. It looks like Wikipedia’s editors have decided to keep the article. I respect the editors’ decision but I would like to re-write the article in a much more neutral manner with the same kind of tone and language that is similar to other Canadian union wiki articles. You will also notice my article contains references/footnotes. It's posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SEIU_Local_1_Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.91.137 (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• The editing of a closed AFD discussion is frowned upon. You may get a better discussion of the proposed changes if you post it to the Articles Talk Page. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 10:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry about that Hamster. I didn't know the deletion discussion forum was closed. I did post a new revised article on SEIU's discussion forum here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SEIU_Local_1_Canada. It would be great if you and your team of wiki editors could review it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.91.137 (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Cherry Blossom (candy)

Hello Hamster Sandwich, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Cherry Blossom (candy), has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Finger woman. This has been done because the page seems to be about a person, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Finger woman. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Finger woman (talk · contribs) 20:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:209.215.171.5

Hi, sorry to bother but the anonymous IP address 209.215.171.5 has vandalised Wikipedia a ridiculous amount of times. He's recieved no less than 27 user warnings, 6 of those last or only warnings and yet has only been blocked twice, for 31 and 48 hours. It's clear that the person (or at least the main editor on that IP address) is only on Wikipedia to try and undermine it. Is there anything that can be done about this? A user shouldn't be able to vandalise pages dozens of times and be let off with a couple of short blocks. Thanks. Deftera (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hamster Sandwich. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 02:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MSU Interview

Dear Hamster Sandwich,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 22:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)