User talk:Richmondian
Leave messages below!
[edit]Just my views
[edit]I like what you wrote about that rape article. Unfortunately it is true that PC has skewed NPOV of some articles. Your best bet though is not to start problems with editors/admins, but to work within the system by building up a network of editors/admins who like you and support you. For people to take you seriously, write a few articles about serious topics about a historical event or figure and not a videogame or pop singer. Otherwise articles like that rape case will never represent what really happen. I got a 1/2 dozen original articles under my belt and probably close to 1000 edits, and i got reverted with a slap in face referencing LA Times. Need a large team. It is much more difficult for the PC forces to rewrite history when a large team with proven track record opposes it. u need allies who are admins, unless u plan on getting banned, the way u talk. my point is, stop beefing, and start meeting people. but most important write original content. Meishern (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Richmondian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked because of http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Richmondian I AM NOT any of these users and do not operate their accounts. They appear to be all one and the same to me but I have no association with them. "Duck test" is pretty weak...
Decline reason:
I see three new accounts being registered, and each of them finds their way to the 2009 Richmond High School gang rape page within minutes after their creation, making edits identical to yours. Equally each of these users seems to have more in-depth knowledge of the subject then any previously uninvolved editor could have - which means that another editor involved in the debate must have created them. In other words, i would say it is extremely likely that they are created and operated by you. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
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.
Richmondian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do not know what to do here. I have no contact with those users or accounts. What can I do to prove this? The "sockpuppets" have each popped up and edited one article and dabbled in others. I sent one a "welcome message" and that is all. Their diction is different than mine, but I do not know who they are and do not know how to prove they are not me. If it matters, as far as I can tell they haven't been used to engage in any rule-breaking practice (3RR, vandalism) and have made very few edits. A Checkuser will prove that we do not edit from the same location. I do not think its reasonable to block me indefinitely for this, I really do not know anything about those accounts.
Decline reason:
Quack quack per the above decline. As for "A checkuser will prove we are not editing from the same location" ... well of course it would, wouldn't it? It wouldn't establish that you weren't one of the same persons, though, would it ... anybody can use the Internet to make it look like they're editing from Outer Mongolia, can't they? — Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
Richmondian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Reviewing Admin, please help me. I do not know what I can do to prove I am not one of the users that are suspected to be my sockpuppets. I do not know who they are or what drives their behavior but I can say with certainty that they do not edit from my IP address. If a Checkuser is not sufficient what options do I have? I do not use an open proxy if that makes any difference. The "socks" seem to be a single person, maybe they all have the same IP? Thanks for your time.
Decline reason:
Only today another sockpuppet of yours has been blocked, and it is rather obvious as the accounts 2nd edit was to come here and say "That's what you get for telling the truth my friend". A new user wouldn't do that as their 2nd edit, nor continue your edit war right off the bat. Combined with the other similar sockpuppets, I agree this is a WP:DUCK case. Taelus (Talk) 07:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
Richmondian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Reviewing Administrator, Thank you for reviewing my request. Any advice is appreciated. You will see the administrators that have come here earlier believe that the duck test proves that I have multiple sockpuppet accounts. Could you tell me what someone could do to disprove something like this? I do not believe the other accounts are legitimately new users, there appears to be someone else creating them, using them for a few days, then creating another, and so on. I have no control over them but I do not know how to show this. I do not expect a new reviewer to believe this, but could you tell me, if you did believe me, what do you recommend I do? Thanks for your time.
Decline reason:
It is evident that your desire to continue sockpuppetry persists, so there is no indication for unblocking you at this time. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
Hi all. I've been asked to review this case by a number of editors. Just unprotecting for the moment, if that's okay. Feel free to re-protect if needs be - Alison ❤ 10:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Unblocked
[edit]As per Alison's findings now posted in their new location at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brucejenner, I have unblocked your account. I would like to personally apologise for any inconvenience caused. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
That was a bit unpleasant. Sorry I wasn't about to slow down the process. I may or may not agree with you, but you don't seem like the kind of person who would be trying to game the system. I hope that this doesn't drive you away, as I think there are more articles that could use the kind of focus you bring to help sort out the sticky issues around victims, accused criminals, and such. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Since you refuse to start a discussion, I'll start it here. I don't understand why you kept on inserting the 26% thing in the article. I've told you tons of time that this little fact is not notable and shouldn't be in the article. What readers really need to know is that he won the election with 52% total votes. Who care if he only got 26% first round votes? I began to think that you are trying to diminish the fact that he won the election with a clear majority.—Chris!c/t 23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
- Also, please don't call edits you disagree with as trolling. That is a clear breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.—Chris!c/t 23:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you have some misunderstanding with this particular voting system. The 52% is not meaningless because that is the final votes he got at the final round. He needs to have at least 50+1% to win otherwise he couldn't have won. The 26% is those who vote for him first choice, and it doesn't include second or third choice. The article you linked is an opinion piece and it omitted the fact there are second or third choice votes. Either the writer misunderstood or the writer was purposely trying to express an opinion. If you want to say meaningless, the 26% is the one because that is not the final votes he got in order to win.
With that said, I am willing to compromise. We can mention in the body that he got 26% in the first round and that the 52% is what he got at the end.—Chris!c/t 20:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
American Indian Model Schools
[edit]Hi! I rewrote the American Indian content at American Indian Model Schools WhisperToMe (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Michelle Le has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Per WP:VICTIM and WP:BLP1E, this should be a page on her disappearance, not the individual, if the crime is a well-documented historic event (which that I would question too).
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. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Michelle Le for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michelle Le 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/Michelle Le 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. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Man with electric shock baton image
[edit]- Please resume discussion on this query, at Talk:Electroshock weapon#Man with electric shock baton image. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Murder of Michelle Le for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of Michelle Le 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/Murder of Michelle Le 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. ...William 02:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
American Indian Model Schools
[edit]Hi, Richmondian! I wanted to check up and see how the American Indian Model Schools article is doing, then I realize you undid the redirect I started - I had more or less recreated the same article at the new location. I did not anticipate the merge being controversial.
The "AIM schools" are both a part of the same system. They are both like one school. There isn't much of a difference between the campuses. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The article Binh Thai Luc has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- I have BLP concerns about this article. When a person is only accused of a crime, not convicted, the standards at WP:CRIMINAL suggest that an article about the person should not be created. Additional concerns are WP:NOTNEWS and lack of sufficient notability.
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. --MelanieN (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
[edit]Your upload of File:AIPCS ethnicities.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
American-led intervention in Syria Neutrality
[edit]After tagging the article American-led intervention in Syria as not being neutral, it'd be appreciated if you explained your reasoning for tagging it on the article talk page. - SantiLak (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)