User talk:Redgator5

__NOINDEX__

Talk Page
I will not tolerate malicious or vulgar comments. These comments will be read but deleted if they bear no relevance to Wikipedia or my user account. I will also not accept SPAM comments. Redgator5 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Spindoctor69 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Matilda talk 06:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Traffic stats
Then I would suggest we take the article back to the stats of 17 September per WP:NOTNEWS - we are not going to update these stats daily or weekly and I am concerned at the POV pushing that updating the stats indicates - in fact I think the volatility of the stats is an interesting point and I am really genuinely curious about why Mauritania - what does it mean. I don't think the information is too long, even in proportion to the article. We have an assertion about Japan but in fact we are talking Mexico, India and Spain after Mauritania. As a matter of interest, given WP:BIAS, those stats (if they could be explained especially), would be an argument for keeping the article.--Matilda talk 00:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I do know about the tool bar and do have some understanding of how Alexa works. The trouble is Alexa was being used as a criterion for notability - eg in this message . The article references are inadequate. The closure of this AfD as "no consensus" means deletion can be raised again - and I will do so if no sources materialise - for example the to-date-phantom Norwegian article. The current references do not establish notability according to our guidelines (WP:CORP and/or WP:WEB ) - and the point you made about it meeting WP:WEB criterion 3 is not a sustainable argument - you have not interpreted that citerion correctly in my view. If a country that has just been through a coup and is not noted for its fishing industry is variously the biggest user or the second biggest user according to a reasonably valid tool - a tool moreover that was cited for notability by Spindoctor69 - then .. what can one conclude? --Matilda talk 01:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am more than happy to wait for one month or so for good sources to materialise. I will follow the development of the article with interest. There was a suggestion that the Norwegian article would be published within the week. It would be good if it were available (and online) - I will bablefish it http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=Norwegian&to=English ( bablefish doesn't do Norwegian :- to ensure the gist of the article matches the claims attributed to it, or the claims the article is cited to support. I certainly appreciate that it may be harder for some web sites to establish notability than others even though they are actually more significant. It amazes me there are no sources other than trivial mentions or those that do not meet our WP:RS guideline.  Aren't there fishing industry magazines that woould be mention it?  Obviously the industry is very large, if the site is important - and I can't see why it isn't: it looks important/useful when I view it - why is it not discussed anywhere?  I am sure I would have no difficulty in verifying say the importance of the Sydney Morning Herald, if its notability was challenged, with many many external references.  I appreciated the web is different but this site has been around for 12 to 13 years.  I genuinely don't understand. I am not trying to be hard to get on with deliberately. --Matilda talk 04:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Comments such as this will get you an instant blocking on the next occasion - comment on the material not on the editor. Okay?'' -- VS talk 12:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why - Why penalize me and not the other user who makes constant rude and sarcastic comments?Redgator5 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Fish Info and Services
Hello, I noticed that you had input in a previus deletion discussion. The article looks like it may be deleted by the same group of people who started the first discussion, without imput from you or others who contributed previously. I thought you may liketo know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.82.69 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to see this account unblocked.
Redgator, a review of Suspected sock puppets/Spindoctor69 convinced me that your identity as Spindoctor69 is practically proven, in spite of some possible faults in the process. If this is correct, I would highly recommend that you acknowledge it, that you affirm that you will not create additional accounts except in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and, further, that you acknowledge any conflict of interest (COI) that you may have. As Spindoctor69, you tendentiously defended the Fish Information and Services article, which you had created. At this point, I predict that the article will ultimately be kept, and it would have been kept from the first AfD (No Consensus = Keep) if not for the sock puppet confusion. I.e., your aggressive defense could result in deletion -- even though it should be irrelevant -- or, at least, it prolonged the process.

As an editor with a COI, you would generally be expected to refrain from any controversial edits to articles where that COI applies, but you would still be able to suggest changes on the Talk pages, and within the bounds of civility and general consensus, argue for them there.

I believe that your continued participation in the project could benefit the encyclopedia, if it stays within community norms. If you agree to the conditions above, please show your agreement here, and I'm prepared to argue for your unblock based on an acknowledgment of your errors and your pledge not to repeat them.

If you are not Spindoctor69, which remains a remote possibility under some very unusual situations -- which you have not disclosed, should they exist -- that simple path won't be open to you, but we can cross that bridge if it is necessary. --Abd (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes! i would like to see this block contested. There are no COIs and I have contributed to many articles! I really don't understand why I have been blocked. (Redgator5 (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC))


 * You need to use the template as instructed above in the block notice --Matilda talk 21:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FIS.com
Also, I found this article with user reviews. It shoul help establish notability on the article: http://www.xomreviews.com/fis.com (Redgator5 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC))
 * I don't think it meets our guideline on sources --Matilda talk 21:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)