User talk:Heinleinscat

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Heinleinscat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Shootbamboo (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality

hello. WP:NPOV is a wiki thing we follow around here. we basically follow whatever reliable sources say. i saw you "sniping" some references you found biased. FYI this one is "reliable". personally, i think DN lets folks get up on a left-wing WP:SOAPBOX too much. but imagine a world where there are six news sources: three liberal and three conservative. now imagine an event that only gets covered by the three liberal sources. so if wikipedia had an article on this event, it would have to have a liberal slant in order to be neutral because all we do is accurately reflect what reliable sources publish. anyhow, happy editing! if you would like to reply you can here and i'll have your talk page on my watchlist in case you do. thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to comment here you just click up on the "edit" (top right) above this section and you would place two colons to comment after me, as I placed one to indent out. best. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you said you "think we should try to eschew ... referenc[ing]" Democracy Now! on my talk page. to a certain extent i agree. personally, when i write articles i try not to use them as a reference because people know it is biased so they may look at the content in a more disparaging way. however, wikipeida regards DN as a WP:RS so there is no problem doing so. and it would be wrong to go around removing that type of content simply because of the editorial bias of the reliable source. in fact, wikipedia should reflect the editorial biases of the published sources we deem reliable, in proportion to their weight, in order to be neutral. do i make sense? thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

did you mean to put extra whitespace with this edit? it's not normal practice. (to me it looks ugly.) i'm going to put it back thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing sourced content

i was disappointed to see this edit of yours in that it removed sourced content. =( please don't do something like that so WP:BOLD-ly please. also, your new additions, for example to the SEC don't take the reader anywhere useful. you have to type this [[U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission|SEC]] which works like this—SEC—if you want it to be useful. we call that a Wikipedia:Piped link. thanks! happy editing. =) -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think WP:PRESERVE would be good for you to read. thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE

when you cite sources, could you provide more than an url? for example, you could do this <ref>Sanger, David E. [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/world/24prexy.html?_r=1&hp "With Warning, Obama Presses China on Currency"], ''The New York Times'', September 23, 2010, accessed October 31, 2010.</ref> or fill out a citation template like this one <ref>{{cite news |title= |author= |newspaper= |date= |url= |accessdate= }}</ref>. thanks! -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

signing your comments

FYI, when you comment at user pages and talk pages, sign your post with four tildes: ~~~~. It will sign your name and time automatically when you save changes. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MBMadmirer. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you believe that this block was in error, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing unblocking

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).

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

Request reason:

Um... how about I am not those persons? Heinleinscat (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

How about checkuser evidence identifies you with at least seven accounts, and they all edit the same articles?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:36, 9 February 2011 (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.

They do not. They edit all different articles. It's true that I have worked with my roommates and some friends on editing pages, but they aren't all me. I introduced several other editors to Wikipedia, but they didn't keep up with it, hence the reason these appear as sock puppets. How do I avoid the appearance of sockpuppetry? Do I have to start over?

I have no idea who those people are who are blocking me but I have never engaged in sock puppetry. I am currently a student on a campus so it is possible multiple people make edits from these IP addresses but I would like to have it removed immediately.Heinleinscat (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what are the odds that you would edit the exact same articles as those, using the exact same grammar? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you aren't allowed to have multiple editors and work with friends to improve pages? It is true that I would work in the evenings with friends on pages, but these aren't all me.Heinleinscat (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of them you? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked WP:SHARE over on the WP:SOCK rules. It seems that User:CheckUser interpreted my teaching of friends who share an IP address with me as sockpuppetry. Admittedly, it was pretty dumb to have them edit pages I have also worked on, but please assume [WP:Good Faith]]. I'll no longer teach friends from school here on the same pages I have and declare all future potential conflicting edits Heinleinscat (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you encourage friends to restore your edits after being reversed, it qualifies as Meatpuppetry, which is treated as sock puppetry, as being indistinguishable unless someone is watching the editors type. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never encouraged my friends to have anything to do with my edits, but I see that some have. No one has ever restored or reversed my edits with my say so. What can be done about this? We talked about the Kochs in class and there are some 6000 students on campus here and nearly 4000 near where I live. We all share IP addresses. Am I really to be blocked for this? Heinleinscat (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quote WP:FALSE Negative: "Editors with access to the CheckUser tool may consult the server log to see which IP addresses are linked to which accounts. CheckUser cannot confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected; it can only show whether there is a technical link at the time of the check. In accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, checks are only conducted with good cause, and results are given so as not to compromise privacy; "fishing"—the use of CheckUser for a given user account without good cause specific to that user account—is prohibited." It appears as if my friends and I are being targeted because of our willingness to make Koch pages more balanced.

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).

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

Request reason:

See reasons above. Please assume WP:Good faith and move this. I'm concerned that the policies regarding the use of CheckUser were violated because of our willingness to try to balance some pages and to teach new libertarian leaning editors. I am not those users and I did not knowingly violate any policy. Could you please review this again?Heinleinscat (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. If your explanation is true, the case probably needs checkuser reevaluation and discussion of private information, which is not practical in this venue. Please contact WP:BASC with a request for the review of your case. Sandstein 10:11, 11 February 2011 (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.

Question for administrator

{{adminhelp|User:HelloAnnyong}} How can I get my account unblocked?

Here's some information for your consideration:

This is awkward because I am a very private person and because I am the leader of a group of Wikipedians here, but I would like these pages to be unblocked for the following reason. While I realize WP:NO RUSH, we are kind of pressed. We're due to submit a club budget in the coming days and we can't edit the pages so we can't really have a club.

I run a fledgling group of libertarian/conservative students at my (very large) school in my apartment's common area. Three of those editors listed as sockpuppets above are WP:Roommates. We each picked someone at random who had political views on the right whose page we felt did not comport with Wikipedia standards. I confess that I am not much of a Wikipedia editor, but I figured that forming this group would inspire me to do a better job and to help improve the information out there on the internet. At times it has felt like the blind leading the blind, but it has been fun.

Some of the editors just added a word or two and then called it a day, but some want to come back and we're hoping to form a Wikipedia club here on campus. We sit in the room together and edit, often having a beer or two along the way, as in the past.

We now are blocked from doing that. We kept to a rule that we would never edit one another's pages, but I see that in one case that this was violated. I will tell the perpetrator not to do that again, but I don't understand why all of our users are being punished, though I don't mind that my fridge is full of beer. What can I do to help you unblock this page and others?Heinleinscat (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll inform HelloAnnyong of your request. Regards So Why 08:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Help...

Dear User:HelloAnnyong,

If you would be so kind as to unblock me, I'd be much obliged. I see that you have unblocked User:Jeff Bedford who was listed as a confirmed sock of User:Nanorlb. Apparently, my editing club all the way in California was brought up in what we consider a misuse of User:CheckUser by User:Rd232.

User:Arthur Rubin can confirm that my edits have been helpful and that I have been training friends to use Wikipedia responsibly. I think that the allegations of WP:SOCK are pretty unfair. We almost never edit the same pages and the one time we did, we did not communicate with each other about it, but merely discovered that one another was on the same page after the fact. (The Kochs often come up in our political science classes.)

Is there anything that can be done? Heinleinscat (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other half of that case turned out to be a false positive of CU. And this may be as well, but based on what you've said, I have some misgivings about your intentions. At the very least, I'm concerned about meatpuppeting, particularly in the way of Koch-related articles. An 'editing club' is fine, but if you're all going to sit there and collectively own an article, we can't have that. As you said you'd talk to them about not doing it again, but, well, I'm a bit hesitant. Let me discuss this case with one of the checkusers, and I'll get back to you. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are simply a club that hangs out and talks about current events. The Kochs were in the news a lot so we wrote about them because they were mentioned a lot in one of our classes. We never discussed the edits that we did and we'll vow once and forevermore never to edit the same pages. We don't think we're in violation of meatpuppeting because we never even really knew each others' user names until we were accused of WP:SOCK. Can you fix it anytime this week? We are hoping to have the school pick up the tab for our lab hours.

Thanks. Heinleinscat (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? You guys formed a Wiki editing group but didn't know each others' usernames? Uh.. fine, whatever. I've unblocked everyone for now. But if the meatpuppetry restarts, I will restore those blocks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, we're not putting anyone on the moon anytime soon over here. Thanks. Heinleinscat (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Claremont Independent

Hi, I've added a no notability tag to this article, created by you, if sources are not found relatively soon to show notability, the page may be deleted. Also the isteve source is not a reliable source per WP:SPS, and of course that source also never mentions the independent. Passionless -Talk 22:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Claremont Independent

The article The Claremont Independent has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability, no secondary sources, possibly created by PR firm

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Will Beback talk 00:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claremont Independent

The article was deleted because it did not assert notability. See WP:N. If the paper has received awards, or significant coverage in independent sources, then it could qualify as notable. If you think you can find sources to establish notability I could undelete the article and place it in your userspace for improvement. Because of the history of this account, etc, I feel obliged to suggest that if you have a connection, personal or professional, to Ashwin Navin or the Independent then it would be best if you disclosed that. Will Beback talk 03:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]