User talk:Fire Green Horse

Welcome!

Hello, Fire Green Horse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as 2011 Imbaba Church Attacks, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Mtking (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2011 Imbaba Church Attacks

The article 2011 Imbaba Church Attacks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP is not a news service (see wikinews), no indication of lasting noteworthiness

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mtking (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the deletion tag because I'm still working on the article, and because it's quite pertinent for Wikipedia. The incident has been already reported by all major news agencies (CNN, BBC, AlJazeera etc). If you have a particular concern about the article, please let me know.--Fire Green Horse (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)][reply]

That is just WP:ROUTINE news coverage, I am going to nominate under WP:AfD. 02:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of 2011 Imbaba Church Attacks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Imbaba Church Attacks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Imbaba Church Attacks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mtking (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

prior accounts

Have you ever used a prior account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 17:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of engaging in the edit war you are seeking to start, Ill be opening an SPI shortly. Bye Lanternix. nableezy - 18:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lanternix for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fire Green Horse (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Wikipedia policy for defending oneself against sockpuppet investigations:

If you are accused of puppetry, stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally. If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding.
I trust that investigations on my account and IP will not connect me to any prior or current user of Wikipedia.

If there is a good reason for the evidence provided, point it out in your own section.
Not sure if the above accusations provide any good reason for anything, but investigations about my account will show that I used to edit a lot before using IP before I created my Wikipedia account. This is how I am familiar with Wikipedia. Maybe this provides an explanation to the accusing party or maybe not.

Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.
Great. Again, I rely on my trust that any investigation will prove me unlinked to other users.

If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly, but cases on this page will be decided based upon evidence of misuse of accounts only.
I want to make it clear that I tried to act in an appropriate manner by discussing the problem on the talk page of Egypt. I think it was easier for the accusing party to accuse me here of sockpuppet instead of objectively replying on the talk page to help improve the page. So in a way, I think this is truly some form of "bad faith" from the accusing user.

You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them, other than to note the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry. Claims and issues that are not relevant to account and IP abuse will almost always be ignored by the clerks and checkusers, and will often be removed.
I believe the rest of the accusations made by the accusing user are not relevant to the case. But if the clerks find it important for me to reply to them, I can if they want.--Fire Green Horse (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I hate to burst your bubble, but the sockpuppet investigation already confirmed that you are Lanternix. It concluded even before you were blocked. So please don't bother with any more socks, we'll find and block them too. -- Atama頭 19:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.