User talk:Zalinda Zenobia

Geoff Clapham
Of course the article is inevitably going to be deleted. But why not just let the guy place the {hangon} tag and try to make a defense, instead of continuing to revert the tag? Saves you effort, and maybe he'll actually look up WP:BIO and learn something. Or not. Whatever. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Aldo Rodriguez


A tag has been placed on Aldo Rodriguez 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Epeefleche (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Note
Hello. I have noticed that you have made. I would like to inform you that editing as an IP address separate from one's account is not forbidden per se (this practice may be used "to maintain security on public computers"). The corresponging policy only says that one "should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics." Still, calling sockpuppetry is extreme to say the least. According to policy, what constitutes sockpuppetry, among others, is "logging out to make problematic edits as an IP". This is not the case here.

The IP address 195.134.64.173 that I used belonged to a public network. I have occasionally used computers belonging to this network but whenever I used this IP, I used it only for "innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking" in order to avoid such accusations. (Incidentally, I want to clarify that I may sometimes log in when using this network, but this depends on the specific computer lab; computers of this network pose varying degrees of security concerns.)

In no way have I ever used 195.134.64.173 in an inappropriate way. Nor have I ever used more than one account or an IP address to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests "that they are multiple people." On the contrary: on the specific talk-page-comment you have used as evidence for sockpuppetry I explicitly declare that I am the same person as 195.134.64.173 (I say: ). I did not use this IP for "creating an illusion of support" in a vote or argument. (Incidentally, I would like to clarify that 146.151.66.190's edits are not mine as WP:CheckUser could easily verify.) So, there was nothing illegitimate in my activities. Please always assume good faith; an IP address that is "not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint" for sock-puppetry.

Note also that you have not followed good practice: i) you may have placed a tag on my user-page but you have not notified me in my talk-page; ii) you have created "suspected sockpuppet category pages" both for the IP and my account. —Omnipaedista (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Omnipaedista is quite right. Far from there being any evidence of using logged out editing to appear to be a different person, the "evidence" you gave was Omnipaedista indicating perfectly openly that he/she was the same person, which is not by any stretch of imagination evidence of sockpuppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Party shading/Constitutional (Kenseito) at templates for discussion
Template:Party shading/Constitutional (Kenseito) has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Party shading/Constitutional Nationalist at templates for discussion
Template:Party shading/Constitutional Nationalist has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Party shading/Military (Army) at templates for discussion
Template:Party shading/Military (Army) has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Party shading/Military (Navy) at templates for discussion
Template:Party shading/Military (Navy) has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)