User talk:Deva 840

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/Vr (2nd). Thank you. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate

I simply presented evidence based on what I had uncovered which was reviewed by a checkuser. None of my evidence was inaccurate or misleading. If you have a problem, I suggest you discuss it with the admin who originally blocked you. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I repeat what I said above. The evidence I presented was the evidence and you are free to review it if you want. The whole idea of a sockpuppetry investigation is so that people can review the evidence and decide is if it is sufficient. I specifically mentioned the evidence against you was somewhat weak. An investigation is not, and should not be taken as an condemnation by me or anyone else but a suspicion worthy of review by the community. In this case, the checkuser originally reviewed the evidence and concluced sockpuppetry was at play. They've since reviewed it again and I presume concluded that the evidence is insufficient and so unblocked you. None of this is my fault, again if you have a problem with originally being blocked you should complain to the checkuser but since they have already apologised to you, I don't really see what you are complaining about. I can't speak to private communications between you and other parties but the admin has not approached me which suggests they have no problem with my behaviour. Also, to be frank, I don't care whether you are a senior academic. If you behave in accordance with our rules, then you're fine by me whether you are a senior academic or a rubbish collector. If not, then even being a nobel prize winner or Ban Ki Moon is not going to prevent appropriate action agaisnt you by the community. As a senior academic, you hopefully have a lot of knowledge you could contribute to wikipedi so I suggest you start contributing rather then arguing with me over nothing. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was mistaken, it was Jfconnely for which I said the evidence was weak. (As a 'being a senior academic probably older than you' I'm sure you're well aware that people can make completely innocent mistakes of this sort when they are talking about something 2 months old, so please don't accuse me of not telling the truth any more, as I've mentioned repeatedly the evidence is there for anyone to review so it would be exceptionally stupid of me to lie about something like that.) Regardless, the evidence is the evidence and is is freely presented for others to review. No one other then you has stated I should not have brought the case or made a mistake and indeed the other two parties in the case are still blocked. Indeed the fact that we are even discussing this is indicative that I'm not the only one who felt there was a legitimate case. The checkuser tool on wikipedia, in accordance with our privacy policy, can only be used sparingly. It can not be used for fishing. A case may be brought, by an ordinary user like me, but it must be reviewed first by another experienced user to determine if their is a case worth looking at (which was done and it was approved) and finally a checkuser must determine if there is sufficient evidence for them to use the checkuser function, in accordance with wikipedia and wikimedia foundation policy. They are ultimately responsible for determing if the tools should be used and it was done in this case. I have no idea if the checkuser feels in retrospect the tool should not have been used or they simply feel the evidence was insufficient to warrant a block. Regardless your apparent believe that I am ultimately or solely responsible for this is a mistake as I have repeatedly tried to explain. This is simply part of the process, if you feel you were treated unfairly in any way, you are free to bring a complaint via the appropriate channels. Also, I have treated you civilly and fairly up to now. But while I have tried to explain the issues to you, it is ultimately your responsibility to understand policy and there are many avenues to do so (my talk page is not one of them) so I'm growing tired of your tirades and won't be responding any more to them. All I can say is if you have a genuine complaint about my behaviour, please take it through the normal wikipedia channels rather then bothering me with pointless messages repeating the same thing based on an apparent misunderstanding by you of wikipedia policy. If not, then I suggest you learn to collaborate with other editors in a constructive manner rather then getting worked up over a normal part of wikipedia process for dealing with suspicious edits. P.S. I appreciate English is perhaps not your first language, but please learn to read what people say carefully. I did not suggest Ban Ki Moon or a Nobel Prize winner would resort to poor behaviour. I simply pointed out that if they did, their credentials would be irrelevant as are yours. All we care about is your behaviour, not whether you're a senior academic as Madras University. If you contribute constructively then you are welcome. If not you are not. End of story. That was my point ergo why your repeated claims of being a senior academic at Madras University don't interest me at all. As it stands now, you are welcome on wikipedia as a checkuser has judged that there is insufficient evidence of sockpuppetry. So I of course AGF that you are not a sockpuppet and am of course sorry I was mistaken on that part (but I'm not sorry that I brought the case). But you will quickly learn that if you try to use your credentials to excuse poor behaviour on wikipedia you will be laughed at. We are highly welcoming of people with a well of knowledge who can contribute constructively to wikipedia, but it doesn't mean we allow them to behave poorly. As a senior academic, I'm sure you are aware that if someone comes to Madras University and behaves inappropriately, they wiill be dealt with regardless of who they are. It's the same thing here. I'm sure you will also be aware that if visiting scholar comes to your university and keeps reminding you of their credentials, you're not going to be impressed but more likely to be annoyed. Well it's the same thing here as well Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2012

You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

The article Newslaundry has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)