User talk:Copyedeye

I was alerted to an edit war occurring on Press TV. I have reviewed your actions and while you are technically guilty of a WP:3RR violation I have elected to not apply sanctions against you, as your editing seemed generally constructive and in good faith. However please try to avoid becoming engaged in edit wars in future and bring such matters to the attention of administrators at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Manning (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of David Casavis
A tag has been placed on David Casavis 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 person or group of people, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  ttonyb (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of David Casavis
I have nominated David Casavis, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/David Casavis. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  ttonyb (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Press TV
Could you please join in discussion before adding large parts of 'controversial' information. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI
Hello. This is to notify you that Sockpuppet investigation has been filed against you. See here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You have been. (blocked by MuZemike 20:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

This block has nothing to do with sockpuppetry - the current block is for meatpupptry used to gain false consensus. Would you like to re-do the unblock request, or is it best to just decline it as it does not address the issue? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 17:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to re-read WP:MEAT, as the accusations in your new unblock show a complete lack of understanding of it. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request
.


 * Hello Copyedeye. Can you please clarify this edit to the Gary Weiss article? It seems this is what makes you look like a sock of Mantanmoreland. Can you explain how you go from an interest in Press TV, an Iranian channel, to suddenly want to keep a certain court case from being mentioned in Gary Weiss's article? You supported Stetsonharry's reversion, and he is another editor who is now blocked as a Mantanmoreland sock. EdJohnston (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

.
 * If you have edited Wikipedia before, it would increase our confidence that you are a good-faith editor if you would share some of the IDs which you have used previously. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response regarding any usage of previous accounts. You've answered my questions, but at present I do not feel comfortable doing an unblock. I've reactivated the unblock template so that other admins will see your request, and they can do whatever they think best. I will leave a note for User:Seddon, the last blocking admin, as to how things stand. Seddon is sporadically active, so I'll also notify User:MuZemike, the previous blocking admin. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)