User talk:Wonkotsane

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks for your support at this Cfd vote. Unfortunately, as an unestablished User account, your vote may not be counted, but I appreciate the support anyway.

If you intend to participate in future Cfd votes or discussions, please establish your credentials by making some good edits on a range of other articles before venturing back to the Cfd voting.

You may be interested in new votes at:
 * Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_18

Please consider voting: Keep.--Mais oui! 09:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a sockpuppet
(copied from User talk:DESiegel).

Hi,

During a google search I see that I was referred to as a sockpuppet. I guess this is wiki speak for a spoof account to try and win votes?

I am genuine and I only voted on the one issue because it was the only one I happened to be interested in at the time and which I thought I could speak with some authority as an English nationalist.

If, in future, I see any other votes that I feel strongly about I will vote again. I don't have the time to spare to participate in Wiki or anything else very often at the moment.

Anyway, the accusation was made against someone called Mais Oui and you quite rightly dismissed the accusers (can't remember their name but I think it began with an R) accusation. For the record, I don't have a clue who Mais Oui is - like I said, I don't really have that much time on my hands to get involved.

If you want to check me out, just search for wonkotsane in Google and virtually all the top matches are me. The Wiki page I am referring to was on page 2 (I think) of a search for wonkotsane on google.co.uk. My time is taken up mainly with my involvement in the Campaign for an English Parliament (http://thecep.org.uk) and my own blog (http://blog.wonkosworld.co.uk).

Anyway, thanks for making the right decision and maybe we'll cross paths again some time.

Stuart (wonko) wonkotsane [email removed]


 * This seems to have been during the debates on the deletion of and. FYI a "sockpuppet" is a secondary account used by a person who already has an account, particularly when it is used to spuriously join the discussion and make it seem that there is a more general agreement with a position than there in fact is, or when it is used to vote more than once in the same poll or discussion. (There are also legitimate uses for multiple accounts. Some editors have separate accounts from which they work on particular fields of interset, or tasks.) The term is borrowed from Usenet.


 * It is in general considered impolite to accuse another user of being or having an illegitimate sockpuppet except when there is significant evidence indicating that this is in fact true. User:Rhollenton was, IMO, going too far in making such accusations.
 * That said, it is noraml to note when a person who expresses an opnion or "votes" (technically they are not votes) in a deletion discussion is relatively new to the project, or has relatively few edits, and it is considered proper for the adminstrator who asseses the discussion and makes the final decision based on the views expressed and the "votes" cast to discount views from users who are not logged in, or who are very new to the project, or who have made very few contributiosn to it. This is partly becasue such users could be sockpuppets, but more because such users may well not have a good feeling for the customs and policies of Wikipedia, and their views on what should be deleted and what should not be deleted may not be as represenative of the community as a whole as those of longer-established users are. So if you plan to comment on future deletion discussions, you will find it advisable to make at least a few article edits first. I understand that you are busy, and Wikipedia is not the first priority in your life, nor need it be. We would welcome whatever occasional contribution you care to make. If you were to fill out your user page (at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wonkotsane&action=edit) it would help to indicate your real nature and give you a presence in this project. Users with filled-out user pages are soemtimes taken more seriously in various contexts. this may not make good sense, but it does happen.
 * I am copying this to User talk:Wonkotsane and to you via email, since it seems you log on only rarely. DES (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

England
I think the only edit of yours I reverted was when I removed an external link to Anthem 4 England which you added on August 3rd. I don't see how this is "the removal of the assertion that the English Democrats Party is a far-right political party and the implied association with the BNP". You also said: "I don't kno what agenda you are following but I find it offensive". If you don't know what my agenda is, how can you find it offensive? My only agenda is to ensure that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (such as WP:EL) are followed. Gwernol 02:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not directly elected / unelected
I am the one who made the change to "not directly elected" and take offense at the accusation in your edit summary that it is "propagandist". Each of the other regions said "non-directly elected", which is a nonsensical way of putting it. At first I changed one of them to "indirectly elected", but changed it back after seeing that some are appointed by "stakeholders". I then settled on "not directly elected". The West Midlands article was the only one that did not say "non-directly elected", but I changed it anyway to bring it into conformity with the others after looking at the article regarding the assembly. Since there is no significant difference in how assembly members are chosen in the West Midlands, it only made sense to use the same descriptor for all of them.

"Unelected" may well be the better term, but it could be argued that since some are elected as local council members and from that position elected/appointed by the council (or council party or however it works) to the assembly, they are in fact indirectly elected. If you are indirectly elected, you are elected. If you are elected, you are not unelected.

Frankly, I do not care which it is. My only agenda was to use one accurate term that wasn't the wretched "non-directly elected" that appeared on eight of the nine pages. -Rrius (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

-- No offence intended but "indirectly elected" or "not directly elected" is the favoured term of propagandists who try to cover up the fact that nobody is elected to the regional assemblies. If a councillor was sitting in the House of Commons but not elected as an MP would you say that he or she was "not directly elected" or unelected?


 * Forget the hypothetical. Some people are put on the assemblies by "stakeholders"; they are clearly unelected. I know "indirectly elected" is wrong for that reason. If the others are indirectly elected, it can be argued (as I set out above) that they are elected, not unelected. Having said that, I will repeat that I don't care. I just think all regions should have the same descriptor. -Rrius (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

-- I agree they should all have the same description, I suggest they should all be changed to unelected because that is the case. I'm sorry, but I don't agree that being elected to one body means that another body you are appointed to can be described as elected. That would mean, for instance, that party grouping in my local council is an elected body because it consists of elected councillors.
 * I don't agree with that last point. The Americans vote for electors to the electoral college, who in turn elect the president. He is said to be indirectly elected. Party groups, however, are not elected by the council: they are a group of people on the council who share party id in common. -Rrius (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brookside, Telford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madeley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TUV. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Welsh Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mardol. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)