User talk:Fixthepedia

Johnny Sutton

The article is semi-protected - look at the history. BLACKKITE 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Sutton again

No, full protection would say "edit=sysop:move=sysop" - see this ([1]) for an example. Your account is less than four days old, and is therefore affected by the semi-protection.BLACKKITE 18:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've only semi'd the page to prevent the edit-warring from the 98.x.x.x IP address. I blocked the first one, but it merely returned under a slightly different IP and continued the edit-warring and incivility. I don't have a major opinion on the content (though I'd agree the George Bush quote doesn't belong in the lead paragraph). I suggest you attempt to negotiate with the major "opposing" editors on the talk page / their talk pages for the time being, and I will unprotect the page if/when an agreement appears. Thanks, BLACKKITE 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth reading the biographies of living persons policy here. There are multiple problems with that edit; amongst other things

"During Congressional investigations into the matter, a Department of Homeland Security employee with connections to Sutton lied to multiple congressional representatives..." - that's got nothing to do with the subject of the article.
www.wmd.com is not a reliable source. This makes at least two entire paragraphs ineligible (especially the "During the trial...." one.
The entire David Sipe paragraph is not relevant to the subject himself.

BLACKKITE 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be better off finding another source other than www.wnd.com, which is notoriously unreliable and biased. A quick look at thier list of books for sale should confirm this. BLACKKITE 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources that take extreme positions are unreliable regardless of their political affiliation. I wouldn't trust this one just as much as I wouldn't trust www.wnd.com. BLACKKITE 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that should be fine. Let's see what others think now. BLACKKITE 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quanell X

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Quanell X, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Quanell X, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please consider these as warnings against further vandalism of the Quanell X article and discussion page. Thank you.

Deatonjr (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my confusion, I got reversed after seeing several items like this [2] and was trying to clear things up and I guess I missed one. When I saw the anon IP correcting [3], I hit the "undo" button after getting confused thinking they had re-added the ebonics-speak instead of catching a repair I had missed. It happens, I'm under a bit of stress studying. Thanks for correcting me.

Thanks for the response; that would explain the accidental rvv. You had made some more constructive previous edits, and the ebonics reversal didn't quite make sense. Those history logs can be confusing.
I haven't watched any of the referenced videos because we are blocked at work, but will take the time to do so later. I want to try and add to the Quanell X article without making tons of extraneous references to the Joe Horn affair.

Deatonjr (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put your page on watch, to see updates to this conversation. I happen to be logged into the Houston Public Library Databases; there's some good articles on Johnny Sutton in their databases. Your school's library probably cites the same ones if it has Infotrac or some other good database service. I don't know anything about him, but it looks like he's an attorney involved with the Ignacios-Ramos border patrol affair?

Deatonjr (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is right, he is the US district attorney responsible for the prosecutions of Ignacio Ramos, Jose Compean, Gilmer Hernandez, and Gary Brugman (but not David Sipe, who was prosecuted in a neighboring district). He spent a good deal of time earlier this year defending the prosecutions of Ramos and Compean on a variety of national and local radio shows. It appears to be his main issue of notability, though there is also the House of Death case which someone keeps trying to remove from the article.

I tried to make a compromise version of the page, but a bunch of users were edit warring and my version got lost in the shuffle. You can see my last attempt here [4] before it was reverted by Brimba and Jons63 who have been edit warring there quite a bit.

Please also look at the difference between my edit and the edit Jons63 and Brimba seem to think they are fighting against, you can see the difference in this link [5]. I try to make it as neutral as possible without losing facts.

Help request

{{helpme}} I merged Anne Casey and submitted Warith Deen Mohammed‎ as plagiarism as per each talk page, can someone check my work to be sure I did it correctly? I'm still learning here.

Warith Deen Mohammed‎ should not have been blanked based on the plagiarism. I tagged it for WP:CSD. That is a good page for you to review as well as Wikipedia:Plagiarism. I use the template you placed if there is a question of plagiarism that you want someone else to review. If it is blatant, use the WP:CSD (either way works). Gtstricky (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm confused: it was based on [6] that I blanked the page because I couldn't find a good version to revert to. Please explain?

You were correct; the instructions on that page aren't very well known. What Gtstricky did is also correct; either method will mark the page for deletion. Don't worry about it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of FixtheBorder (talk • contribs • block log • creation log). As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All of your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I believe this block was not in good faith. It was put in place at the behest of Brimba, who had been edit warring on a page and had been refusing to look at the edits I actually made as opposed to the person he was edit warring against. I have done many things in wikipedia and still have been learning how it all works but I have been strongly assisting in expanding the Quanell X article and successfully merged an article with another editor. Please reconsider this drastic course of action.

Decline reason:

Pick a single account and stick to it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:51, 10 December 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

this is my one and only account, I've never had any other.

Decline reason:

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer. This account is a checkuser-verified sockpuppet of User:FixtheBorder. Pick a single account and stick with it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:52, 10 December 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I checked the page there and do not see any listing and in any event, you must have made a mistake. I have edited only in good faith and now am being persecuted by a person with an agenda and you are helping them do this.

Decline reason:

If you want to be unblocked, please make the request using your original account, not this one. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:11, 10 December 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did make the request with my ONLY account. I don't have any other and I don't have access to the one you're claiming is me.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, as someone said earlier, we have already verified that this is not your only account. Shell ^babelfish 15:41, 10 December 2007 (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.

Would someone PLEASE pay attention to my actual edits instead of the weird claims of someone who just edit wars on the sutton page?

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).

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

Request reason:

The user is talking in IRC and says that he's not FixTheBorder. This page is protected, and he says he has emailed two admins and has received no response, so I'm posting this on his behalf. He says that he edited from "the dorms" until Friday, and is now editing from a different location. Contribs don't look particularly problematic for a new user, so I'm inclined to believe him. Since FixtheBorder is editing now (which seems odd for a supposedly banned user), and Fixthepedia has edited today, a new checkuser could reveal if they're actually editing from the same place or not. Zocky

Decline reason:

Account is unambiguously a violation of WP:SOCK. — Yamla (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (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.