User talk:Michelle cannon

Bishop Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige

Please take a look at this article about the catholic bishop Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige . Users deleted sources and tried to force their anti-catholic POV on it. They banned many people that tried to add sources. They didnt block me or Eastmain, but they deleted our sources we gave too. It appears that they don't like this catholic bishop.

Best version until now with 13 sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&diff=343039227&oldid=343037941

And after deleting the sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&action=historysubmit&diff=343481960&oldid=343039227

(At first they had planned on deleting the whole article but it didnt work)

Check out at the information on these other wikipedia articles about Seiwert Fleige and compare them to the info that is on there now. You will notice that its quite the oposite:

Pierre_Martin_Ngô_Đình_Thục

Palmarian_Catholic_Church

Sedevacantism

Clemente_Domínguez_y_Gómez

Thank you

You should talk to someone who understands more about the subject of the article and the circumstances around it. Thank you. --Rockstonetalk to me! 21:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Seiwert Fleige

I'm sorry but doing a search on google news and google books I have come up wth nothing. I am unable to help u on this. Sorry. Callelinea (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)callelinea[reply]

It is very obvious that the information on this other wikipedia articles fit to the long version and is like contratictive to the version after deleting the sources. And for me the article looks very good anyways with all this sources, you should just undo the deletion. I will look more carefully at this soon. --Templeknight (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add hoaxes to Wikipedia. Hoaxes are caught and marked for deletion shortly after they are created. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia – and then to correct them if possible. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia in an attempt to test our ability to detect and remove such material. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia policy to learn more about this project and how you can make a positive impact. Thank you.

Where is your proof that this is a hoax? there is more proof to the article that I posted then there is to the version that wine guy posted. His posting is the hoax!!!! a hoax is something that didnt happen! --Michelle cannon (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Bishop" Seiwert-Fleige

Stop spreading the nonsense that he is a bishop ! He is a costume dresser !

Look at the article Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige.

I am a big fan since what he did was almost impossible. He is the greatest costume dresser ever and for this he deserves his article in wikipedia !

--Ban Yoo (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol... now thats what i call a far fetched line of truth. good one..--Michelle cannon (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Yoo

Nothing to do with me. Never heard of the person before. I got a message just the same as you did. And one of those hoax warnings. I've no idea what his agenda is - if he's a he - and if he's got one anyway. Peridon (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true then please accept my apologies for accusing you. Im just starting to feel pressure and stress from being a member of wikipedia with all these problems with that page and with you and the others .... its very suffocating. anyways.. thanks for the note. and again, sorry to accuse you of playing games against me with that banyoo fool... --Michelle cannon (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for that (it is true), and you will get apologies from me if the investigation clears you. Which could be the case. You might just have picked up a smoking gun as the sheriff came through the door.... I'm not anti-Catholic and am just trying to get the article to a true state of affairs as I do with many others. I am interested in how they banned Ban Yoo so quickly as a sock. Some are easily spotted, others merit investigation, but I didn't spot that one. Peridon (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS Try Cradle of Filth and Korpiklaani. Not the same as Nightwish, but very interesting. Metal with a difference. Peridon (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ya it seems to be my luck... i noticed alot of drama the last time around so i avvoided it... only to be brought back into it again. Oh well... thanks for the music info... actually I love the song nymphetamine by C.O.F. I havent heard the other band... I kinda like that whole operic(sp) sound to heavy rock... Ill check out the other band... thanks ps that ban yoo guy was very naughty, did kinda make me laugh though about that whole bishop costume rumor...... guess he/it just wanted some attention --Michelle cannon (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bischof-Ralph for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Osarius ^{That's me!} : _{Naggin' again?} : ^{What did I do?!} 19:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dont yall have better things to do then harrassing me ? geesh...

Creation

Thanks Michelle!EGMichaels (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle -- don't be discouraged. Religious articles are the most exasperating, because there are too many people pushing an agenda. Both theists and atheists and everything in between are trying to save the world. The sockpuppet changes are sometimes warranted and sometimes just gaming, but don't let it get you down. If a certain subject is filled with unfriendly editors, there are other subjects on wikipedia to poke around in. But I'm very grateful for your input in the Genesis creation myth discussion. Hopefully we'll find a solution that it tolerable for all (or most) parties.EGMichaels (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EG... After reading your message i actually feel a little better. *smile --Michelle cannon (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reply from my talk

If you are not the the "Checkuser confirmation" will clear you, i would like to think your not but the edit history does seem suspiciously similiar pattern of edits. I would like to think you are not but until the "Check user" response comes back i am sorry to say I as jury member am inlined based on the existing evidence. I case you are unaware "check user" is somthing used only by the "wikipedia cabal" as well as some admins. It is basically the same as DNA evidence in the show CSI, it pretty much proves whether or not you are a sock puppet. If You are editing from close vicinty of these puppets and the puppetier you might be in trouble; so it may be wise to declare your loaction on that page in the interest of openness. Regaurds Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you seem very hurt, i dont blame you. I hope you are not a puppet the above statement will give you hope. Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, by using the tool and matching TCPIP addresses of one user to another, it (the tool they are referring to above) only approximates a verification of suspicion since very few users are mapped to a particular TCPIP address. All it really means is that you, someone else in your vicinity (network) who acquired an IP address that you used previously or someone who used a virtual addressing technique (there are several) which has been available to the Internet community since the late 1990's, made the comments. It is entirely plausible that someone who could locate an IP address that you had used, could have just as easily faked your use of that address. However, most of the "experts" on Wikipedia are no more skilled than "network experts" at-large in the general corporate populace at discerning technical events and possibilities, so it is entirely possible that you genuinely did not know what was going on... And they are certainly not personally equipped with the skill level that would be required to defend you from the accusation, only skilled enough to accuse you... Unfortunately, we live in a world of uncertainty that has created a generation of absolutists... And for that, you will pay the price - in this case - of banishment... Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apprciate your kindness. thankyou. I know I am not a sockpuppet. the editing might seem familiar BECAUSE i used a previous version of the article that someone else had written. It had good sources in it but whoever wrote that must not have known how to write in English very well. There was alot of run on sentences, sentence fragments, and typos plus mis information. I didnt change anything in the article. I only fixed the version that was poorly written and after i corrected it I re posted it. I did ask for people to help me with the page and only one person offered to help, who happens to be templeknight. Peridon and tim song and wine guy could have offered to help me write it rather then try to ban me and accuse me of being someone else. Anyways, thanks again for your kind words. --Michelle cannon (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC) ps yes of course i am hurt, have you read the gossip about me? its very hard to read the thoughts of what others think about you publicly. and its rather embarrassing too that ANYONE can read it and make their judgement about me based on other peoples ideas. :( --Michelle cannon (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you DID pick up the smoking gun as the sheriff came in.... You seem to be in the clear now - the checkuser linked Templeknight and Ban Yoo and found a sleeper, from the look of it. I will offer my apologies - but I do hope you can see why I had suspicions. The reason we (well, me at least) didn't offer to help was that we were having trouble sorting out who was who - and who the heck this 'bishop' was and what Bischof-Ralph was trying to get across, and why. They've had trouble with him over on the German Wikipedia. The poster NebMaatRe is in fact an admin over there. BTW, if you want something a bit different to listen to, try Wevie Stonder. Yes, spelled like that..... Peridon (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is a sleeper??? And congratulations for being... er... yourself, Michelle :-)EGMichaels (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an account kept in reserve by a sockpuppeteer. They sometimes set up more than one at once. Peridon (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean bill of health

in case you had not noticed? ;-) Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ME

I always knew I wasnt a sock puppet *smile.--Michelle cannon (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarette girl

I moved the text to an article, Cigarette girl (person) since Cigarette girl is a disambiguation page and not an article. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randomness

I have decided to attack you with randmoness, I think that it might be very intr in hev

Well thankyou for that random attack. *smile

Cookies

		Cookies!
		Please accept these cookies, please keep up the good work and do not let being investigated as a sock puppet (again) get you down. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AWWWW!!!! thankyou SO MUCH. you know, actually, im a bit addicted to cookies hehehe.... so ill gladly accept them. thankyou for the support. --Michelle cannon (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Alfred Seiwert-Fleige

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Alfred Seiwert-Fleige. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Seiwert-Fleige (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious behaviour

Now hang on! You've been putting the Napierski version back in. Papphase is, like me, an editor of many and varied subjects (on the German Wikipedia in his case). You've only really shown interest in a rather obscure German bishop (or not bishop as the case may be). This is what my references to smoking gun and dripping dagger were for. Your editing behaviour looks suspicious. Can you blame us for being doubtful? As to conspiracies, I'd not come across WineGuy, Tim Song or Papphase - or you - before this business. I don't join cliques - I only actually know one person who edits here. We are friends from outside Wikipedia and our paths haven't crossed here. Please read my comments at the SPI again. Peridon (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon... i had a good feeling about you. you are not like the other wikipedia "snitches". you are different. dont sell yourself out to being like "them". this is not the way to gain self respect. you know im not a sock. dont get sucked up into their little games. I will pray for you because i know there is more to you then this spi crap. you know you are much better then that. and you know you can contribute alot more to this life then trying to catch "socks". you said that papphase is like you. No that is not true. Papphase is lost in his own thinking. you are much better then that. dont settle for being "like" papphase. i wouldnt want to be like him. he is a very misearable and unhappy being who needs to make others feel less then equal so that he can feel important. i pray for you. --Michelle cannon (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Papphase can be a bit abrasive, true... What I was comparing was our edit history - being both quite extensive and in very varied subjects. Some people only edit railway articles, for example, while I'll edit almost anything. Exceptions being most rap performers and athletes - the majority of both of which I personally consider to be rather non-notable. Thank you for your prayers, but I don't think my god and yours are on speaking terms. You never know, though, what goes on behind the scenes. Peridon (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Michelle cannon. You have new messages at RP459's talk page.
Message added 18:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the edit warring

If you revert the Alfred Seiwert-Fleige‎ back again without any talk page discussion (I mean discussion and not launching attacks at whomever you disagree with), you're going to be blocked, plain and simple. Knock it off. –MuZemike 18:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for harassment

You have been blocked 1 month for harassment. (blocked by –MuZemike 03:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

CheckUser (on both the English and French Wikipedias) has Confirmed you creating another account for the sole purpose of impersonation and/or harassment. –MuZemike 03:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did post something here... its in my history if you care but i changed my mind.. im not going to comment on any of this because its all a bunch of BS... --Michelle cannon (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, by using the tool and matching TCPIP addresses of one user to another, it (the tool they are referring to above) only approximates a verification of suspicion since very few users are mapped to a particular TCPIP address. All it really means is that you, someone else in your vicinity (network) who acquired an IP address that you used previously or someone who used a virtual addressing technique (there are several) which has been available to the Internet community since the late 1990's, made the comments. It is entirely plausible that someone who could locate an IP address that you had used, could have just as easily faked your use of that address. However, most of the "experts" on Wikipedia are no more skilled than "network experts" at-large in the general corporate populace at discerning technical events and possibilities, so it is entirely possible that you genuinely did not know what was going on... And they are certainly not personally equipped with the skill level that would be required to defend you from the accusation, only skilled enough to accuse you... (For example, I went to Stony Brook University where about 25,000 users (the entire university) are still arbitrarily banned from editing on Wikipedia, because of a lack of technical skill on the part of Wikipedia' "administrative" hierarchy). Unfortunately, we live in a world of uncertainty that has created a generation of absolutists... And for that, you will pay the price - in this case - of banishment... Stevenmitchell (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]