User talk:Olesachem

Hello, Olesachem! Welcome to Wikipedia! We're so glad you're here! If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills, the sandbox is for you. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Dump digging

Hey there, nice work cleaning up this article. I see you did a substantial rewrite. But what are your sources? If you could also cite references for your content that would be excellent, and we may yet may a high quality article out of this. -- œ ^™ 05:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Historical digging

The article Historical digging has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I like to saw logs! (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Historical digging for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Historical digging 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/Historical digging 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. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Privy digging for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Privy digging 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/Privy digging 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. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Olesachem. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexandria (chew out) 14:44, 1 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not now nor have I ever been a ‘sock puppet’. It is my understanding that this allegation was instigated by a small handful of semi-vandals and dubious commentators who to my knowledge have contributed essentially nothing of any productive value to the articles privy digging and historical digging. What started out as an honest attempt to convey a more accurate version of privy digging and historical digging, has somehow been allowed to spiral into a bizarre inquisition of sorts; one with no constructive end in sight as it were. For the record I am appreciative that ‘consultant09’ and ‘themischr’ and any others who have actually attempted to add positive comments and commendable edits to the articles have done so. Clearly additional editing is needed to perfect these important (in my mind anyway) ‘beginner level’ additions to Wikipedia. It is my sincere hope that many other knowledgeable and qualified editors will also invest the time necessary to develop these into an erudite and constructive Wikipedia articles; and not simply subsume them into some branch of conventional archaeology in one reflexive move, seemingly to hide the unpopular facts. Once again, please remove me ‘olesachem’ from the blocked list and allow me to do my improvements on the articles as time permits.Olesachem (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Explanation for the below was not provided after more than 48 hours. To the blocked user : You are free to submit another review with the explanation. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 5 December 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.

Comment for reviewing administrator(s): I looked into the accounts, and concur with Mailer Diablo's findings at the SPI. From a checkuser/technical perspective, this account is a very likely match to the other two listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Olesachem/Archive. From a behavioural perspective, all three accounts edit an identical subject area, and there is a close overlap in the editing times and in other habits. AGK [•] 16:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olesachem, could you offer an explanation with regards to the other two users? - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doll head.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Doll head.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 00:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]