User talk:Alfadog/Archive

I will welcome myself (Welcome! – OK, thanks!!)) – no need for a WP:WELCOME template – please feel free to extend a non-templated and personal welcome below. --Alfadog (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bark here and I will bark back here. I stay in my yard. Woof.

My e-mail is enabled but I will not be checking it regularly so please let me know here if you send me an e-mail.

Machine + Soul
I had already reverted an improper removal of a tag. It was borderline for a prod vs the db-band, but I will capitulate. I am uncomfortable with doing a 3rd edit on this page to re-instate a db or a prod because I will appear to be 'hounding' that editor. I'm not like that and as such I will leave it alone now... if you feel it should stay there then by all means leave it there as well... I really only found one place on the net and it really is not notable or encyclopedic. --Pmedema (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Gary Numan is definitely notable so db-band is not the tag to use. I am not familiar with notability guidelines for albums so if you are then go ahead and prod it. I was more concerned over the misuse of the db-band tag and the WP:BLP issues in the text. Take care. --Alfadog (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to leave it alone. --Pmedema (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Later. --Alfadog (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Something else
Oh, Sim is a Singapore passenger who died on CI611. Generally I redirect names of passengers on the flights, whether they are mentioned or not - That prevents article creation and links a person who is not individually notable (and therefore does not get his own article) to the article about the disaster itself WhisperToMe (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. At the risk of being callous, I guess they won't be complaining. Take care. --Alfadog 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bobo
Thanks for the note. Someone had redirected to the real article previously, so I thought there would be some relevance. So I went back to the redirect and protected it so the hoaxter couldn't use it for his/her own nefarious purposes. Then I started looking for some connection, significance or relevance between the "Bobo" title and the real article. So far, no good. So, I'll likely get rid of the thing entirely. Thanks again. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  22:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

PS Found a connection to DJ Bobo and redirected there. This way it's effectively salted for now. Don't see the connection between the two hoaxters. Has someone asked that the new one be blocked? Dloh cierekim  22:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please see Suspected sock puppets/BangUser. The article was created by the sockmaster and hoaxes are what he does. Please let's not use it for anything - just delete and WP:DFTT. Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  03:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

New page patrolling
What it means is I went here, clicked on a yellow highlighted link, scrolled down, and clicked on another link that said "mark page as patrolled". Basically, what that means is I checked to make sure that the page didn't fit the criteria for speedy or proposed deletion. --Kannie | talk 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I never looked at that as I have been busy enough with WP:RCP. Thanks for adding to my wikistore of wikiknowledge! --Alfadog (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just marked one - cool! --Alfadog (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooops
Sorry about that. Thanks for fixing it! RogueNinja talk  19:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. You are welcome. --Alfadog (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Evan Nicholas (Niclas y Glais)
Are you saying you do not accept the biography of this man, written by a History Professor at the University of Wales, as sufficient evidence of notability ? If you do not accept that as evidence, could you indicate what would be acceptable ? --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * IDK. I am just not sure if a bio published for a local historical society meets our definition of reliable or if that asserts sufficient notability. I would think that if the fellow is truly notable then there would also be references to him in more mainstream publication, don't you think? That was my real point. A quick Google found that BBC piece. There are likely lots more. You can remove the tag if you like but I would still like to see other, more mainstream, sources. Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is another good one. --Alfadog (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the advice and help. I've learned a lot from this contribution. --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. --Alfadog (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A response
'' "I am not a number, I am a free man." '' Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I looked up your quote after I responded to it. That was my most favorite show back in the day but, on more recent viewing, I found the memory more charming than the reality so I decided to leave it as memory. --Alfadog (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in keeping with the theme: '' "Whether you be called by a number or a name, freedom is a delusion; there are no free men." '' --Alfadog (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually wasn't alive when it first aired, but thanks to Netflix I was able to watch all the episodes from first to last in order. I actually loved it. It started petering out a bit towards the end, and that final episode was a real brain buster, but I really enjoyed McGoohan and specific elements of it. I like that they clearly spent some time and money on costuming and creating the atmosphere.

'' "Be seeing you." '' -- Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I might give it another shot. Trouble is I saw so many of these classics like Twilight Zone, Star Trek, The Prisoner, The Avengers, etc. when they were first aired and my memories are undiminished by any shortcomings or dated bits that I might notice now. So I end up with a bit of a let-down. Forbidden Planet is still a great flick.  Monsters from the id! --Alfadog (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock
There is no evidence that I "abused" multiple accounts; simply evidence that I "used" multiple accounts, in a mostly sequential fashion, i.e. using one account because I stopped using another. Also, I am under NO sanction by virtue of that or any arbcom. There is little reason, if any, to block this account other than that I made a few minor edits three weeks ago when I should not have. So is this my punishment for that? --Alfadog (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayron
 * Justanother/Alfadog, I don't think it helps you right now to claim there's no evidence you abused multiple accounts. When Mangojuice denied an unblock request on your last block, he said you appeared to have edit warred on an IP address to skirt the arbitration probation on Scientology articles.  Now we also have checkuser confirmation that you evaded that block on this account (Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother).  Really, since you posted five separate unblock requests for that block, it strains credibility to the breaking point to suppose that you then logged in accidentally and used an undisclosed alternate account during the block.  All I'm asking is that you participate productively under your main account, and only that account.  None of us are perfect; please, just accept this in the interests of the project so that we can move forward.  Durova Charge! 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I really do not recall why I made four (4) innocuous edits. I already apologized for that. My problem with you Durova, and JH, is that you ascribe all these nefarious motives when the diffs do not support that. It is obvious that this Alfadog account has not been improperly used (except for that minor and harmless case) yet you still seem to support some punitive action. You guys are like "That guy over there is bad - arrest him!" when he has done little wrong. I could really care less about this account as my obvious purpose was to contribute without all this crap and baggage and I screwed that up by forgetting I was logged in but I hate when people get over with ill intentions or simple carelessness that is even perhaps worse than ill intentions. Carelessness about the truth, carelessness about justice, about what is right. That is what bothers me. Regarding your concern about Cirt. I have already addressed your concern about what I had on my page - where is my acknowledgment for that? I am not interested in editing Scn articles from any account though I reserve the right to make an occasional correction from my IP if I care to. There is nothing wrong with that and edits stand or fall on their own merits. --Alfadog (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Look: five unblock requests for a single block is an extraordinary demand upon volunteer time. Then, when all five had been denied--and you were fortunate enough not to have had the block extended in the process--you edit from another account anyway.  If that was really an accident then you would have disclosed it yourself, but you wait for someone else to file a checkuser.  Then even when the result confirms that you've violated policy, you deny wrongdoing.  It isn't punitive to ask for a restriction at this point: the rest of us have better things to do.  You're right, I haven't acknowledged your reply about Cirt because it was condescending and uncivil: I've never given you permission to address me by pet names and it hardly amounts to much that you claim to have been calling a nonprofit project a crack whore instead of a particular individual (whom you elsewhere directly accused of abusing drugs).  Really, I had very little opinion about your religion until I encountered you and I hope this isn't the kind of behavior they teach and endorse, because you are an exceedingly poor ambassador for it.  Durova Charge! 23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh please, Durova, you have called me a lot worse than "dear" - or have you forgotten your attack on me at the CofS arb? As far as WikiNews being for "sale" (though all it "costs" is time), well, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I made my point then and am not about repeating it. So I am a bit of a prick when I am attacked and harassed as an editor and when so-called "productive editors" that know nothing about Scientology can make a career of cherry-picking sources and skewing articles to forward their POV. But I have made that point already too. And I am not fighting that fight anymore. This account was something I began months back when I thought I might want to continue contributing without involving myself in Scientology battles. I am not sure how much of that I want to do and, in any event, I can do whatever little editing I care to without logging in - no biggie. As I told JH, I stand behind every single mainspace edit I ever made - and there are thousands of them. They were good edits and they were not good because I was trying to maintain a low profile and not get CAUGHT pushing my POV (like one I won't name) - they were good because I do not push POV. Maybe someone somewhere can appreciate that distinction. See ya round. --Alfadog (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If I had done anything untoward, surely the arbitration committee would have noticed. I have no opinion about the subjects that a fellow editor chooses to work on: if that person's work passes WP:GAC and WP:DYK and WP:FAC then I thank them with a triple crown.  You could have earned one too, and I'm disappointed by the direction you've taken.  Durova Charge! 03:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see what that direction was, shall we? Here is an exercise for you, Durova. Set aside all your preconceived notions about me and take a look at my side. I think that my actions will bear out my description. So do me the courtesy please of looking at things with a fresh mind and seeing if I did much of anything deserving of this latest punishment. If you are not willing to extend me that courtesy then what are you doing over here talking to me? --Alfadog (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An experiment:
 * 1) I decided that I could not devote the amount of time to the project that would be appropriate to offset the amount of noise I create simply by virtue of being the only Scientologist that edits here and standing against the army of know-nothings and POV-pushers. Not to say all Wikipedians or all critics of Scientology are such, just saying there are an army of such. I said here that I did not want to be a troll or the pet Scientologist and I bowed out.
 * How are we doing so far? Do I have it right? See anything there deserving of censure?
 * 1) While I certainly cannot devote an adequate, in my eyes, amount of time here to stand up and be counted I still am on the internet, still am interested in Scientology and Wikipedia and I make an occasional edit without logging in. Those edits can stand or fall on their merits.
 * How are we doing so far? Do I have it right? See anything there deserving of censure?
 * 1) While handling a blatant WP:BLP issue, Cirt comes along, edit-wars to keep the BLP vio in then spams my page with fake warnings. I get a bit angry and a newbie admin blocks me as his first admin action. Mangojuice reviews and says he would have blocked the both of us but too late now.
 * How are we doing so far? You may not agree here but I think the diffs bear me out? And I think if you gave me a fair shake and really went through that incident (instead of cherry-picking part of an edit summary to make me look bad), you might agree.
 * 1) Meanwhile I have another account I started almost six months ago to edit without the Scientology baggage. I have not been using it much but log in now and then so that I can keep an eye on my home pages for vandalism as IP cannot have a watchlist. My creation of such an account is entirely permissible under WP:SOCK Legitimate uses of alternative accounts:"Users with a recognized expertise in one field might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects."and the checkuser was inappropriate:"I'll be identified by checkuser or accused of being a sock puppet later: Checkuser is used for suspected breaches of policy. If you don't use the old account or engage in problematic conduct, there is little reason a request would be made, and a request without good reason is likely to be declined for lack of cause."Well it should have been declined as there was no breach of policy but it was not declined. There is certainly no reason to block this account.
 * How are we doing so far? So what we are left with is that I made four (4) innocuous maintenance edits unthinkingly on the first day of my block. And that was three weeks ago. So what are we trying to accomplish here? Nothing worth accomplishing, I will say that. And I think if you, or any intelligent person, were to give this a fair look then they would agree. Obviously Cirt is happy to "bring me down" and pounced on my "sock" but again, nothing improper was done other than that error three weeks ago that Cirt knew nothing about and that was not the basis of his attack.

I think the resolution on the AN thread is reasonable. Although you and I are like oil and water, please bear in mind that I set aside personal feelings and proposed a lesser remedy when sitebanning was on the table, and that lesser remedy I proposed was somewhat softer than what was actually adopted. I would really like to see the positive aspects of Scientology become featured articles, and I hope you'll be the editor to do it. Durova Charge! 05:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well just remember that oil and water complement each other nicely in salad dressing. And yes, I acknowledge your point. Thank you for making the clarification on AN. As I already said, I do little editing these days and any "stalkish" behavior has not been on my part. As far as good articles on Scientology, perhaps someday when my personal situation permits. It would help if your "boy" were not busily deleting the few good articles that did exist (ARC and KRC as prime examples). You might be surprised to know how busy Cirt is in that activity. Ta ta. --Alfadog (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Request
This is more silliness. There is no evidence of any real wrongdoing with this account, just a few very minor and constructive edits mistakenly made on RCP. All we are doing here with this "community ban" talk is wasting time with a few editors/admins/ex-admins that have a bone to pick with me and are abusing this opportunity. Any admin (even you, Blueboy) is invited to unblock this account for the sole purpose of addressing the AN issue and any subsequent arb request. Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)