User talk:WanderingScholars

Welcome!

Hello, WanderingScholars, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as George ellias, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kevin (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of George ellias

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on George ellias requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kevin (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

You are suspected 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:Sockpuppet investigations/User:MusicLogger. Thank you. Sockpuppet of User:MusicLogger Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your additions down - new additions are best made at the bottom of a talk page, and that is where people will look. You did not ask a question, but if it is about the sockpuppet notice above, that means that you are suspected of being the same person as MusicLogger (talk · contribs), or of acting in concert with them, because you re-created the same article which MusicLogger had already been blocked for repeatedly re-creating. You should read this advice, and then reply at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:MusicLogger in the section headed "Comments by other users". If you have another question, add another {{helpme}} below here and ask your question below it. JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

George Ellias, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Dcoetzee 11:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked

Articles for creation: George Ellias; Please note that User:WanderingScholars is indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MusicLogger. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of George Ellias for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Ellias is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Ellias until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kevin (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am simply not a sock, but a music historian. Please unblock me immediately.

Decline reason:

Proven sockpuppet: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MusicLogger/Archive Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:46, 10 April 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.

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

76.95.154.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "WanderingScholars". The reason given for WanderingScholars's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: [[Wikipedia:So

Blocking administrator: HelloAnnyong (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly, so requesting a removal of an autoblock will not work. In any case, it would be inappropriate to lift the autoblock of a proven sockpuppeteer. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 06:02, 10 April 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

What procedure can I go through in order to prove that I am an important source for Wikipedia? I have already contributed valuable information to the article for Bess Lomax Hawes. I also have other valuable information to contribute about other artists, musicians and music historians. WanderingScholars (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The fact that you have information to offer Wikipedia does not allow you to break established policy. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 06:02, 10 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to know how it was proven that "I am a sock of MusicLogger"? Tivedshambo, I believe you should look into the user and that initially blocked me and anyone affiliated with doing so to find out. If anyone has used this IP address, it would be a colleague. This is the only account that I use. WanderingScholars (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The details of the investigation can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MusicLogger/Archive. The summary is that the edits were similar to the other accounts and originating from the same location, so the conclusion was that multiple accounts are being abused. —C.Fred (talk) 06:15, 10 April 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have reviewed the investigation. Despite the fact that the edits are from similar locations, I am a user with only one single account. I have no malicious intentions intended by any edits. Only valuable, verifiable information WanderingScholars (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per discussion below; the statement "we believe strongly that this person and his contributions should be remarked upon" (emphasis mine) indicates sockpuppetry at worst, but meatpuppetry at best, as indicated by Kudpung below. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:20, 10 April 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.

The edits are not from similar locations, they appear to be from the same location. Perhaps you could offer an explanation why your account was conveniently created so very soon after the previous creators were blocked. Why would you all (you and your 'colleagues') be repeatedly making attempts to recreate an otherwise non notable biography, with the same typographical errors? Why would you all be so interested in this subject that will very likely be deleted yet again after the AfD enquiry by the community? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because we believe strongly that this person and his contributions should be remarked upon. Keep in mind, this is my first entry, so if it does not adhere to policy as to whether or not it is notable, I apologize, but I do deserve the right to state my reasoning for believing so and also the right to add to the content of the article, such as sources, etc. I do not know what my colleagues have done here previously, but I assure you that none were intended to vandalize. I know them well.

WanderingScholars (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also: If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. How long will this block be on for? I can contribute valuable information to this article that will prevent it from being deleted.

WanderingScholars (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC) In the meantime, some Thai food is calling my name. So I may not respond to this for a few hours. WanderingScholars (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have information that would establish the notability of George Ellias per WP:GNG or WP:Notability (music) if you post it on this talk page, I will post it on the current deletion discussion. Kevin (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thanks a lot Kevin WanderingScholars (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either Kevin or any one of us will add your sources to the article and to the AfD page. However, thank you for offering 'we'. The non-use of multiple accounts is one of the most strictly enforced rules at Wikipedia. Please note that whether the accounts are operated by the same individual or not, meatpuppetry is also blockable: Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives. Part of the deletion discussion process is that other experienced editors will also research for sources that possibly assert notability. We do not lightly consider deleting articles that may have some merit. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC) PS: It is lunchtime here in Thailand too.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would like to contribute to the Wikipedia, but I still remain blocked. How long will I be blocked for? WanderingScholars (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked indefinitely, i.e. until you can convince us that you understand the rules about sock puppetry and meat puppetry (recruiting others to act on your behalf, or acting on another's behalf), and agree to stick to the appropriate policies in future. I suggest you start by answering the questions I've posted below: — Tivedshambo (t/c) 13:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you and User:MusicLogger really two different people? (Be honest).
Assuming you are, how come you both ended up creating articles about the same person? Did you ask him, or vice versa?
Which of you is User:FolkFiend?

Other administrator's will probably want various assurances before unblocking you can be considered. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 14:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although if you really do have information demonstrating the notability of George Ellias, I'd still be more than happy to post it on the deletion discussion. Kevin (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to see my questions above answered with some clarity. At present, I cannot see my way clear to considering an unblock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am notUser:MusicLogger
I created the article for George Ellias because of his importance. I am assuming User:MusicLogger did also for the same reason. I did not ask anyone else to create a George Ellias page, in fact, I am a bit upset that I am having to go through this because of their behavior.
I am not user:FolkFiend WanderingScholars (talk)

Adoption

Per this [1] this edit. Should you use the IP for further block evasion I will block it. For the record, I have no intention of adopting you as I have too many adoptees at the moment, and the adopt-a-user scheme is not designed for blocked users. Follow the Standard Offer and come back to me then, I will consider adopting you at that point. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well you already did adopt me about a month ago. Thank you for unblocking me. In all honesty, I wasn't the one attempting to evade blockage. Of course, I will follow Standard Offer. I am an egg head, I will enjoy contributing valuable information to Wikipedia. Again, thank you for finally lifting this block. WanderingScholars (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC) It appears that I am still blocked... WanderingScholars (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WanderingScholars. I haven't adopted you nor have I unblocked you. I removed your adoption request because there are many unblocked new users who are waiting for adoption and since adopt-a-user is not designed for blocked users, I did not think it was appropriate to leave there. The Standard Offer is that if you can go 6 month without socking and address the reason for the block, a reasonable admin would unblock you assuming there is no new issues.

I'm afraid I'm not strong in the area of sockpuppetry, so I'm unlikely to be able to give a helpful opinion on this matter, other than that there must have been some irrefutable evidence to take you to "confirmed" in the sock puppet investigation process. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]