User talk:Wiw8

Greetings!

Arctic MUD[edit]

This page has been previously deleted by community consensus. If you wish to re-create the page, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cbrown1023 talk 21:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandwidth.com[edit]

I added some references to Bandwidth.com You may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandwidth.com. --Eastmain (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look and will revisit the AFD if necessary. Wiw8 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently closed WP:Articles for deletion/Jonty Haywood as no consensus, but the page needs some work before it's likely to survive another AfD. Since you seemed interested in and knowledgeable about Mr. Haywood, do you think you could work on the page? I'd be happy to help in any way possible, but I'm not very good at content writing. Cheers, and happy editing. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lifebaka, thanks for the note. I agree that the page definitely needs work and I think I can see some areas for possible improvement. I'll take a look and see what I can do. Cheers Wiw8 (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lifebaka, I'm considering using some of the information in this wikinews article (which was linked to in the AFD) to help rewrite the article, but I'm not 100% sure about it. Do you know whether established Wikinews articles from Accredited Wikinews Reporters (as in this case) are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards? I've read through Wikinews's policies which seem pretty strict regarding fact-checking and accuracy, so I'm leaning towards just being bold and making use of it for now. Wiw8 (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Mulhern[edit]

Greetings Wiw8. I've added some sources to this article, which might address your concerns. Thanks! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for Image:Aigueze.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Aigueze.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 22:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSP Case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kernow. Thank you. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2008 (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).

Wiw8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been incorrectly identified as a sockpuppet of User:Jessi1989 and User:Kernow and indefinitely blocked. This appears to be based on me having contributed to the Jonty Haywood article, as apparently the person behind the User:Kernow account has been identified as the subject of this article. However, I was asked to work on this article by an administrator after I took part in its AFD, and as far as I can tell none of my edits have been improper, although I welcome any criticism from which I can learn. Please see below for further details. Thanks for your time.

Decline reason:

Decline pending result of CU enquiry. Caulde 23:10, 23 December 2008 (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 got involved in the subject when I took part in the article's AFD. Note that this wasn't the first I'd ever heard of Haywood, as I'd heard about his "Porthemmet" hoax and have been mildly involved with discussing the The Game (mind game) article, where his website on the subject has been talked about a few times on the talk page. However, I don't know the subject personally or have any other conflict of interest in this area. Anyway, I made an apparently quite strong argument for not deleting the article in the AFD (diff), and as a result I was asked personally here by the closing administrator, User:Lifebaka, to work on the article, after he closed the AFD as no consensus. At the time the article was fairly messily written, so following Lifebaka's request and eager to get a bit more involved in editing article space I made some edits trying to tidy it up and make it a bit more encyclopedic.

Although I've only really got "stuck in" with editing over the past year or so, my account registration predates the article in question by years. All my editing has been in genuine good faith and as far as I can tell I haven't added anything improper to this article, but I am entirely open to the possibility (and likelihood) that I have an imperfect understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines so if I have, if anyone has time to draw my attention to the relevant diffs and tell me what's wrong with them I will endeavour to learn from where I have gone wrong.

Since being asked to work on this article by User:Lifebaka, it's been on my watch list, hence I've made a few edits to it over time, sometimes in response to it hitting the top of my watchlist drawing it to my attention after it's been edited. My edits to this article comprise a total of 18 of my 350 or so edits, excluding a few posts to talk pages. A couple of weeks ago there was some debate over the reliability of some information added by a User:Jessi1989. Most of what she added was simply getting reverted by one user without discussion, but the information did look (to me) to be verifiable for the most part, so I made a few posts/edits trying to get to the bottom of the objections and fix them. You can see the discussion if you are interested here. Anyway, after having the SSP raised against me as a result of this debate I got kind of sick of the whole thing and haven't edited the article since. Looking at the article talk page I get the impression this is all pretty much settled now and that everything in the article is now properly referenced to reliable sources. While I don't have masses of time to spend editing Wikipedia, aside from this article I have edited a fair number of other articles and ranges of articles, including some into which I have been putting ongoing effort for some time now such as X-Bomber and a range of Seychelles related articles, and I would like to continue doing so. I also glance over articles for deletion nominations and deletion reviews and add my thoughts when I have time, and have taken part in dozens of such debates. While I know that there are many users who edit a lot more than I do, I am sure there are many who edit less than me too. To me, my contributions have been far from trivial, and (I hope) certainly not in any way disruptive. If anyone chooses to look into this further and has any questions/queries/comments about me or my article edits, just let me know. Thanks, Wiw8 (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your particular circumstances, I will request a CheckUser be ran to either confirm sockpuppetry or not. Caulde 23:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, thanks for your help. Wiw8 (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the sockpuppeteer is aware of checkuser (and often uses BT, a large broadband company that servers millions in the UK), CU is likely to disprove anything. Though I think the other accounts (Rabidfoxes, Jessi1989) are obvious sockpuppets or meatpuppets associated with Haywood Kernow (talk · contribs · logs), I'm somewhat less confidant that Wiw8 is one. (Though the fact that Wiw8's seventh edit is Game-related is a bit suspicious). I'd consider supporting an unblock if Wiw8 avoided Haywood/Game related edits in the future. I would not support unblocks for any of the other accounts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither would I endorse a unilateral unblock of the other accounts (they seem clearly duck material to me) - however, with some thinking there is another side here. We shall wait for the CU, as this is the best option until further discussion can commence. Caulde 23:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I've discussed the game article on and off. I don't think I've edited it other than perhaps the odd vandalism revert. I honestly can't remember how I originally came across it (my 7th edit you mention was over 2.5 years ago) but I remember seeing a mammoth debate about it and adding my $0.02. It's been on my watch list since. In fact I think activity on the game talk page may have been what lead me to the Haywood AFD. Wiw8 (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You are confirmed as unrelated to Kernow (as per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wiw8) - which was the reason for your block.

Request handled by: Caulde 11:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect unblock[edit]

Checkuser can not establish innocence, especially with regard to meat puppetry. I object to Caulde's unblock. They should have consulted me first. Wiw8, if you touch any article related to Jonty Haywood, or TheGame, you risk an immediate reblocking for meat puppetry. Jehochman ^Talk 21:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to stay away from the Jonty Haywood and "The Game" articles as you have stipulated, as I am not sufficiently involved in either article to want to risk an indefinite block for editing them.

However, I feel I've had rather a "raw deal" here. As you know, an administrator asked me to work on the JH article. I did. For doing so, another administrator (yourself) has warned me not to edit it again. The net result for me: an indefinite block and two effective topic bans on my record, plus the ill feeling that accompanies the deeming of my contributions as "disruptive" and "trivial".

I want to avoid this happening again should I get involved in any other controversial topics in future. So, I would like to understand how you arrived at the conclusion that I have behaved inappropriately. I ask you to clarify this because:

I dispute the integrity of the evidence presented at the SSP, and question the accuser's agenda.
I have never tried to add external links to Jonty Haywood's website to any article.
I have never (knowingly) edited alongside User:Kernow.
My interactions with User:Jessi1989 have been recent and brief.
I have barely edited "The Game" article bar the odd vandalism revert and occasional talk post.
All my edits have been made in good faith and with an aim for neutrality.
My involvement in the JH article comprises a relatively small percentage of my editing history.

The above points contrast with what your comments here and here suggest.

I realise that you will already have checked and scrutinised my editing history in these two topics to verify the evidence before concluding the SSP, so if you could spare the time to point me to the edits of mine that you felt were disruptive (and hence supportive of the evidence in the SSP) and explain why you felt they were inappropriate, I shall endeavour to learn from your comments so that I can avoid similar misunderstandings happening in future. Thanks for your help, Wiw8 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding with grace in a difficult situation. Your response convinces me that we should probably assume good faith. I agree that you may continue editing JH, so long as you are moving the article towards compliance with Wikipedia policies. If I or other editors notice problems we'll surely let you know. Sock puppetry cases are difficult to resolve, and I am sorry for any inconvenience you've experienced. Jehochman ^Talk 00:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I can understand how difficult sockpuppetry cases get. Thanks for not letting me become collateral damage in this one. My aim with all articles is an unbiased application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but I'll try to take particular care with this and other controversial topics. If my edits cause concern with anyone for any reason, my talk page is always open and I welcome discussion. Thanks again, and Seasons Greetings. Wiw8 (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Arctic MUD[edit]

I have nominated Arctic MUD, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arctic MUD (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Marasmusine (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]