User talk:Seresin/Archive 13

PUMA sourced or unsourced references
I removed the paragraph beginning "Another PUMA related blog, Democrats for McCain was also exposed for Republican links" from the Wiki page (you had put it back in after I had removed it earlier). Although the reference does go to an article raising suspicions about whether the group includes any real Democrats, democrats4mccain.com is not a PUMA site, and does not even seem to be part of the Just Say No Deal coalition. Also, the article does not tie democrats4mccain.com to PUMA or JSND or mention them. Democrats4McCain seems to be a straight-up pro-McCain site, rather than a protest site. I probably should have been clearer on why I removed the paragraph the first time around. Valhalla08 (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. seresin ( ¡? ) 00:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Swiss Steelpan History
This article has been deleted by you on july 12th 2008. I'd appreciate if you could move the content of this article to my user space. I do not intend to publish it again, but would like to have the english version, since many individuals keep asking me for it. So much about notability. Thank you. Panmaker (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not your webhost. Since you have no intention to fix the content and make it a legitimate article, I will not restore it to your userspace. However, I will e-mail you the content of the last revision, if you'd like that content. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * thank you, that would be fine for me! Panmaker (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sent. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Deathtopplintheir40s
After a deeper review of the edits of both, I've noticed that the above user (Deathtopplintheir40s) might potentially be User:-The Great One- himself or it would the person who compromised his account who is Deathtopplinintheir40s.

Looking at edits from both, I see that both have edited a lot in talk pages, editing in Wrestling-related article. Pages and/or the talk page of those edited by both included Finger armor ring, Chaos Space Marine, Jeff Hardy, Trevor, Committee, Jim Fullington Melina Perez, Mickie James and Shawn Michaels. Both have vandalized the Iraq article has well basically at the same time I've blocked the Great One. Both have edited the userpage of the Immortal Lord 00.

User:Halo legend 00 and User:The Immortal Lord 00 are also possibly friends or puppets of the two. They have edited a lot in one of the userpages of the other two. They seem to have both interest in Wikiproject Warharmmer as well (so as The Great One). The Immortal Lord 00 also participated in the Jim Fullington discussion page. Halo legend 00 has been blocked indefinitely by WKnight94 and his user talk page has already been deleted.

A couple of the above seem to have also vandalised !!User:Archie!!

As for The Great One, I have seen a mix of good and bad edits from him. I had blocked him for the two edits you've shown me on my talkpage but I though it might have been deathtopplin who compromise his account. Don't know if a checkuser would be useful in sorting this out. Anyways, if The Great One does one more act of vandalism especially more personnal attacks then he's done and probably I will block also deathtopplin. I think it's probably more a group of friends in the middle of this. -- JForget 16:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you made that connection. I doubt a checkuser would prove useful; the edits are probably too old. I was minded to block Deathtoppling as either The Great One or the person who compromised his account (according to TGO, at least); at least for his vandalism at any rate. But you've taken responsibility for unblocking TGO, so I'll let you deal with it. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your concern about WP:Canvassing
However, as the lede at WP:CANVASSING says, "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. This guideline explains how to notify editors without engaging in disruptive canvassing. ..." -- and it goes on to explain how to appropriately canvass in a neutral fashion. Well, in point of fact I'm following its recommendations to an absolute tee! :^)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow     05:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)