User talk:Millmoss

Dur dur d'être bébé!

Hi Millmoss and welcome to Wikipedia ! Yes, you're right. Sorry for my mistake ! ;-) Regards, Europe22 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being overly snarky

L0b0t has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

On a lighter note, we have a cool photo of the Ottawa Citizen headquarters on Sparks st. taken in the early 1950s here. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work, Millmoss. I smiled when I read L0b0t's cookie & note above - shows veteran editors can work together. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hi Millmoss, You seem to be an actual new editor to Wikipedia with diverse interests. We are not supposed to scare off editors like you with anything that might seem like criticism. That said, I notice that you use edit summaries infrequently, which forces people to look at the actual edit to figure out what you did. Edit summaries go a long way towards avoiding having people argue with you and/or revert your edits, so they save effort in the long term. Otherwise, happy editing. Abductive (reasoning) 18:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this advice - I will try to provide helpful summaries from now on. Millmoss (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Let me know if you run into any trouble. For fun, hit the Random article link (on the sidebar) a few times. It's very educational. Abductive (reasoning) 19:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tzukit

Check up its category in wikicommons. :) Flayer (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just look here: [1]. You may ad a small gallery to the article. Flayer (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert

There is a merger discussion underway. It was only opened an hour ago. Please allow time for others to comment. In the meantime, please undo your edits. Tiamut^talk 18:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While your opinion is important, the opinions of others are important too. At Wikipedia, we try to build WP:CONSENSUS for changes. A merge proposal was made a couple of hours ago. Generally, we would let such a discussion run for a few days at least to allow interested editors to comment. I have posted a notice about the merger discussion for example at WP:IPCOLL. People coming to discuss the proposal will be confused to see that the article has already been merged. What is there then to discuss? Please self-revert and allow time to consensus to be built or new solutions to be proposed. Thank you. Tiamut^talk 19:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry. Anyway, would you mind providing a source for the first sentence? Because I don't see one that supports the sentence being phrased that way amongst those cited? Most sources define Abu Kabir as a "town", "village", "neighborhood" or "suburb" made up of Egyptians who came to Jaffa in the 1830s. Which source(s) define(s) Abu Kabir as a neighborhood in Israel? Tiamut^talk 19:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Gerisa

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Tel Gerisa, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.archaeowiki.org/Tel_Gerisa. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio

Hello, when you say something is a copyright violation, as you did here, could you please make sure that you give the source where the material appears copyrighted? I would like to look to see if there is in fact a problem but you did not provide the needed information. I wont revert you as if it is a copyright violation it needs to be cleaned up, but I do need to see why you say it is a copyvio. Thanks, nableezy - 18:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

never mind, I see in your speedy request that was declined you listed this as the source. I will look at this and rework the text if necessary. nableezy - 18:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know why I have been blocked and am unable to edit

Decline reason:

You are blocked because when you were blocked as User:NoCal100, you lost the privilege of editing Wikipedia under any username. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:26, 21 October 2009 (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.

I still don't understand what this is all about. What does "when you were blocked as User:NoCal100, you lost the privilege of editing Wikipedia under any username." mean? This seems to be some mistake. Millmoss (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I still don't understand what this is all about. What does "when you were blocked as User:NoCal100, you lost the privilege of editing Wikipedia under any username." mean? This seems to be some mistake.

Decline reason:

You have been blocked on the basis of checkuser evidence. The only way you will get unblocked is to e-mail he blocking checkuser and convince him that he is wrong. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:06, 21 October 2009 (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.

I see that someone has put up the following on my user page "This account is a sock puppet of NoCal100 and has been blocked indefinitely. Please refer to Checkuser for evidence. " - I clicked on that link and there is nothing there.

Ok, just to make this absolutely clear: are you, Millmoss, claiming that you have not edited English Wikipedia earlier under any other user name, at least not under the user name of NoCal100? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that what I'm saying - I have not edited earlier under any other username, not NoCal100, not anything else. I did edit for few weeks without a user name until I found out I couldn't edit some articles unless I got a username. I was trying to edit the 9/11 article just before 9/11, and someone told me I'd need to be a "registered editor" to do that, so I became one. Millmoss (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as the editor above say: you should email the blocking admin ( User:Nishkid64 ), and convince him that what you say is right. --- Huldra (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I e-mail him? I don't know his e-mail address. Millmoss (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to enable the e-mail function on your account by registering your own e-mail address, then once that is done click here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodam Yat (talk • contribs) 19:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I enable the e-mail function? Millmoss (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click on "my preferences" at the top right of the screen. Enter a valid email address in E-mail options. You do not need to check any of the other boxes if you do not wish. You will receive an email from Wikipedia asking you to verify the address. Once you do you can email other users, including the one who blocked you (Nishkid64) nableezy - 20:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've e-mailed him. Millmoss (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So - no response so far from Nishkid. Any other ideas? Millmoss (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ill leave a message on Nishkid's talk page about this. nableezy - 16:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Another user e-mailed me a few days ago, expressing concerns that this account was a reincarnation of the indefinitely blocked user NoCal100. Based on similarities between Millmoss and NoCal100's editing behavior, and due to the timing of this user's arrival on Wikipedia (just a day after I had blocked the latest NoCal100 sock), I decided to open a CheckUser investigation. During my check, I found that Millmoss was operating from the same general location (within a 25 mile radius) and shared some similar technical features as NoCal100. From the CU alone, I determined that the chance that Millmoss was NoCal100 was possible/likely. Given the shared articles of interest and MO, I felt a block was appropriate. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding - I was away from any internet access over the weekend.

I've read your comments on my talk page, and I think that if you'll examine the evidence closely, you'll see that some of what you said you are relying on is incorrect, and some of it is pretty inconclusive. Specifically, it is incorrect that I arrived on Wikipedia just a day after you blocked NoCal100 or his sock-puppets for sockpuppeting. As far as I can tell, Nocal was blocked in June. Looking at the list of confirmed puppets here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NoCal100 , I see you blocked only one of them, LoverOfTheRussianQueen, and that was on September 1st - but I have been editing since mid-August. You also say you are relying on "shared articles of interest" between me an NoCal - but out of the 60 articles I have edited, I've seen only 1 that was also edited by NoCal - Israel – United States relations. It seems the only "incriminating" evidence is that you say NoCal was operating from the same general location (within a 25 mile radius) of me - but that radius is one of the largest metro areas in the US - with literally millions of people. Is it really that inconceivable that more than one person in this area would share an interest in some topics? Could I ask you to review this once more? Millmoss (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that was strange; I was going to say that Millmoss *might* just have been the victim of a very bad coincidence; and in the name of AGF, let him have another try... Then I notice the above post from Millmoss (at 18:29, 21 October 2009):" I was trying to edit the 9/11 article just before 9/11, and someone told me I'd need to be a "registered editor" to do that, so I became one".

...strange, as User:Millmoss never has edited *any* 9/11 -material..., AFAIK. ...while the article Reactions to the September 11 attacks was one of User:NoCal100 early interests. Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, thanks for allowing that this might be a coincidence. As I wrote , I was unable to edit the 9/11 article, because it was locked from editing by unregistered editors when I was trying it, so it's no surprise you weren't able to see me editing it. You can see my questions about this here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_48#Proposal_for_introducing_a_new_term. I am the IP address 12.54.125.181 Millmoss (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at this, and asked another checkuser to verify my findings, and I can confirm Nishkid's findings that from a technical standpoint a relation between this account and NoCal100 is

Possible, but not certain. I've not looked at behavioral evidence, however, which will have to be the deciding factor here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviourally it makes no sense to me that MillMoss is NoCal100. NoCal100's latest sock (User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen) was block on 1 Sep at 23:23 [2]; MillMoss was created on 1 Sep at 21:35 and made his first edit at 21:42. Unless there was any prior warning of the LoverOfTheRussianQueen block, this timeline implies MillMoss is unrelated. On that basis, combined with the above discussion, I'm unblocking. Rd232 ^talk 15:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reblocked. There is clear checkuser and non-checkuser technical evidence that the human controlling this account is most likely NoCal100. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]