User talk:SockpuppetSamuelson

The time is currently 19:56:15 UTC.

Jake Sisko's post-DS9 fate

I'm not so sure about what you wrote in the article on Jake Sisko. I don't recall anything about Jake having a half-brother on the way in season 7. But I do need to watch those episodes again, though. ShutterBugTrekker 1 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)

Nick Rose Day

Thank you for your vote of confidence. The way people are rsponding is ridiculous, but I have seen it before. Anything involving the Harvard name, or Harvard students, seems to just be an open invitation for nitpicking and attack. It seems to threaten people, or something like that. It really gets tiring. [[[User:68.163.141.101|68.163.141.101]] 14:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)]

Sign your votes!

You forgot to sign your vote! Use four tildes to do this. Roy Al Blue 14:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions

Hi, please note that 'non-notability' is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Please don't use it as a justification for placing {{db}} tags on articles. - ulayiti (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

per contra: Item 7 on the Speedy critiera for articles resads :"Unremarkable people or groups. An article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." By all means, dispute it on AfD: I argue i am entitled to nominate as speedy --SockpuppetSamuelson 08:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Ulayiti should be more specific. non-notability is a widely used criterion for speedying people and bands. I have more than once, stretched a point and accepted non-notability nominations for shops and companies. -- RHaworth 12:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minro edits

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." -Will Beback 18:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed, the policy thank you. I note that it overtly refers to user discretion and also that it states that in some cases edit-reversions are automatically marked as "minor". In these circumstances, I see no reason to amend my practice of marking edits which do not alter substantive text, or which merely add single facts of interest only to revert-war afficionados, as "minor". --SockpuppetSamuelson 08:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand ...

you should be more specific about: I have NPOV tagged this section because of the assertion, which appears unsubstantiated and therefore presumably is an expression of opinion rather than a statement as to fact, concerning Lyndon Larouche. I am also concerned that, phrased as it is, this represents potential defamation. However, I have restrained myself from making any direct edits as I am too far distant from the circumstances to make an informed adjustment.

There is absolutely no indication of which section of which article it refers to. Also the title Wikipedia talk talk:User prerogatives is totally wrong. You will find I have already copied it for you to Wikipedia talk:User prerogatives. Please clarify it there. -- RHaworth 12:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to this on RHaworth's talk page -- SockpuppetSamuelson 14:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baa

Not wishing to switch of my humour detector completely, but edits like this really just make life harder for the closing admin without being particularly useful. I had to go back and re-read the debate to see if you were making some kind of in-reference. It turns out you weren't, unless sheep have cubs. -Splash^talk 22:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Treatise Upon Encyclopaedias and Pseudonyms.

Hello there. Two problems have been brought to my attention regarding your current editing habits. Firstly, I note that the vast majority of your contributions are to deletion discussions; while there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, I feel the need to point out that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that solely discussing the deletion or lack thereof of articles is really best left as a secondary editing activity, rather than a primary one. Looking at your edits to the article namespace, I see virtually no content contributions, which is quite distressing. I hope you can alleviate my concerns.

Secondly, I believe the pseudonym you've chosen to edit with is innapropriate, due to the word "sockpuppet". Please consider changing your username. Thank you.--Sean Black 08:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reply :: Thank you kindly for your concerns.

Item: There are organ-grinders, there are organ-grinders' monkeys, and there are oily rags. Without any one of the three, the music would not be as good.

Item: If a rose is a rose, why call it by any other name ? Or would you prefer that I hide my contributions behind an inaccurate nomenclature ??

SockpuppetSamuelson

Copyvio response

I think the author is correct judging from the national lab journal's copyright page. It is in the public domain. I'm not sure whether Taschner is that notable, however. I've argued with the original author of the Wikipedia article on too many occasions, and I really don't have any desire to get in a back and forth response with him, although I do question his motives. I suspect in time the article will be deleted more because of the notability issue: there's not a lot of information there, there's not anything that really distinguishes Taschner as notable, and there's really nothing to add to the stub. I can't even find the name of the award that is supposed to make him notable, and there seem to be a lot of others who won similar awards who are not in Wikpedia at all. You, me, the original author and his detractors are probably the only people who look at the page. (He'll probably "hunt me down" and respond, here, too.) Olin 14:29, 2 March 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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) 09:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it.

I don't see that test userbox on your user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.130.82 (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]