User talk:Redgator5

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.

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)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for using multiple sock-puppet accounts at AfD and elsewhere as proven here Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spindoctor69. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --VS ^talk 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Redgator5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am appealing a block due to shared IP: Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block. Sockpuppetry is if it is the same person not the same internet conncetion. If I share accomodation with someone how can I be to blame for that person's misstakes. My approach is completely different to the other user, and obviously we are going to edit some of the same articles since obviously, we have things in common. However, if you look at my article edits, they are constructive edits (appart from one on the talk page of Matilda, which I accept may have been innapropriate. By all means, block this other account, not mine. Instead of nit-picking the tiny details of things which I may or may not have done wrong, why don't you focus on the edits I have made and assume good faith as is the Wikipedia way.Redgator5 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am appealing a block due to shared IP: [[Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block]]. Sockpuppetry is if it is the same ''person'' not the same ''internet conncetion''. If I share accomodation with someone how can I be to blame for that person's misstakes. My approach is completely different to the other user, and obviously we are going to edit some of the same articles since obviously, we have things in common. However, if you look at my article edits, they are constructive edits (appart from one on the talk page of [[User:Matilda|Matilda]], which I accept may have been innapropriate. By all means, block this other account, not mine. Instead of nit-picking the tiny details of things which I may or may not have done wrong, why don't you focus on the edits I have made and assume good faith as is the Wikipedia way.[[User:Redgator5|Redgator5]] ([[User talk:Redgator5#top|talk]]) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am appealing a block due to shared IP: [[Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block]]. Sockpuppetry is if it is the same ''person'' not the same ''internet conncetion''. If I share accomodation with someone how can I be to blame for that person's misstakes. My approach is completely different to the other user, and obviously we are going to edit some of the same articles since obviously, we have things in common. However, if you look at my article edits, they are constructive edits (appart from one on the talk page of [[User:Matilda|Matilda]], which I accept may have been innapropriate. By all means, block this other account, not mine. Instead of nit-picking the tiny details of things which I may or may not have done wrong, why don't you focus on the edits I have made and assume good faith as is the Wikipedia way.[[User:Redgator5|Redgator5]] ([[User talk:Redgator5#top|talk]]) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am appealing a block due to shared IP: [[Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block]]. Sockpuppetry is if it is the same ''person'' not the same ''internet conncetion''. If I share accomodation with someone how can I be to blame for that person's misstakes. My approach is completely different to the other user, and obviously we are going to edit some of the same articles since obviously, we have things in common. However, if you look at my article edits, they are constructive edits (appart from one on the talk page of [[User:Matilda|Matilda]], which I accept may have been innapropriate. By all means, block this other account, not mine. Instead of nit-picking the tiny details of things which I may or may not have done wrong, why don't you focus on the edits I have made and assume good faith as is the Wikipedia way.[[User:Redgator5|Redgator5]] ([[User talk:Redgator5#top|talk]]) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}