User talk:Whitenoise123

Revert warring over b and c class[edit]

This is silly. When in a revert war against three different people you really should step away from such a trivial dispute. My god I'm astounded that you would waste time and effort on such a thing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As above. Your efforts here are beginning to look disruptive. If you believe the article should be upgraded from C to B it's up to you to put forward a case that convinces people. You don't get to demand that everyone else justifies the status quo, or you'll change it regardless on what they think. Edit warring without discussion is only going to end badly and certainly won't resolve things. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to pile on but to prevent a lame edit war, I must agree that the burden of proof is on you to prove an upgrade to B. I am on the side of the users expressing their opinion that C is correct in this case until you have a clear case for B. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sharapova review[edit]

Hi, the results can still be contested. What I interpret as something that cannot be contested is a statement such as "Earth is a planet", etc. Someone still needs to be able to go somewhere to verify that the results are accurate. Gary King (talk) 01:22, 23 July 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).

Whitenoise123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Even ignoring the fact the evidence of me being Musiclover565 appears inconclusive (unless I have misunderstood, it is solely because both our IPs originate in NW England), this account, WN123, while engaging in edit warring, has not been used abusively, as recognised by User:Neil, an administrator, earlier today (here). It seems AGK believed I violated the sockpuppetry part of the WP blocking policy; however, the specific SP page implies that suspected socks should only be banned for trying to avoid scrutiny or to mislead others, which does not apply here considering ML565 has not edited since February, and since my latest edit to Sharapova is completely different to his final edit on Sharapova. According to the SP page, it seems that, if one assumes I am ML565, this account would fit under "alternative account", not abusive sockpuppet. It puzzles me why AGK would overrule the judgement of Neil, especially since I had not violated any WP editing policy (though of course, he may not have realised Neil had judged / I had not acted abusively).

Decline reason:

Wikilawyering the sockpuppet policy will not result in unblocking. — MBisanz ^talk 23:33, 8 August 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.

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).

Whitenoise123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In essence, I would like to re-submit my earlier request for an unblock. In retrospect, I can see how it came accross as Wikilawyering, though I certainly did not intend this; I genuinely believe I did not violate the principles of the sockpuppet policy, because that policy is aimed at stopping editors giving the impression they have more support than they actually do and thus disrupting the page. Even if one does assume it is proven I am ML565, I am not guilty of this, considering ML565 has not edited for a long time, and because I attempt completely different edits compared to what that account intended. Once again, I must refer to the administrator Neil’s judgement that I had not been abusive, and therefore, did not deserve a block.

Decline reason:

Serial alternate accounts do give an impression of heightened support. If an alternate account is undisclosed, it's wholly up to the editor to use it in a way which does no harm to the project, which includes always editing within policy and not stirring up worries about who is behind the account. Moreover, I see neither any acknowledgement that you are Musiclover565 nor any denial, which makes it hard for me to trust you. — Gwen Gale (talk) 01:18, 9 August 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.

Folks, before this is declined again, I'm requesting the community review this at WP:AN to ensure fairness here, as there is conflict regarding the case and the subsequent block - Alison ^❤ 00:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will to have to reply to you here, Alison, so I hope you read this.

Firstly, I am grateful for your attempts to reach a fair conclusion to this. However, I must protest at your comment to my message on your page: "Indeed, one of my main rationales for running the check in the first place was based on the "evading scrutiny" part of [{WP:SOCK]]. It's pretty clear, IMO that that's exactly what has been going on here and it just allows you to edit-war intensely on that one, particular article. That is a pretty clear justification for running a check, IMO." Once again, even assuming I am ML565, there would be no scrutiny to evade; the ML565 account would be permitted to perform the edits I have done, because they are completely differrent to the edits it got banned for in Feb.

If a proper discussion is started on AN, I would appreciate it if this comment I have written is relayed there. Thanks.

Whitenoise123 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RUSSIA roll call and your input required[edit]

Privet. You are receiving this message as you were listed on the membership list of WP:RUSSIA at Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members. Recent times has seen minimal activity within WikiProject Russia, and there is an attempt to re-invigorate the project and have it become more organised into a fully-fledge functioning project, with the aim of increasing the quality of Russia-related articles across English wikipedia.

As we don't know which listed members are active within the project and Russia-related article, all listed members are receiving this message, and are requested to re-affirm their active status on Russia-related article by re-adding their username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Members by adding # {{User|YOURUSERNAME}} to the membership list. You may also like to place {{User Russian Project}} on your userpage, as this will also place you in Category:WikiProject Russia members.

There is also an active proposal on the creation of a single WP:RUSSIA project. The proposal can be viewed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#Proposal_for_overhaul_and_creation_of_a_single_WP:RUSSIA_project, and your comments and suggestions are welcomed and encouraged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Proposal.

We all look forward to your continued support of WP:RUSSIA and any comments you may have on the proposal. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 04:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]