User talk:Momma's Little Helper

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alteration of your user page

Momma's Little Helper, I must apologize for my undoing of your edit. I have already expressed that on the Talk:VDM Publishing House page.

Also, you should take a look at your own User Page. (If you are unfamiliar with your user page, you can get to it by clicking on the link at the very top of the page with your name. Or you can just click here: User:Momma's Little Helper. As you can see, your user page contains a giant VDM logo on it. If you go to your user page and click on the history tab, you will see that this logo has been added to your page by User:Playmobilonhishorse. You probably will want to fix this.

I am not a wikilawyer, but in my opinion it is at least extremely rude for someone to vandalize your user page in this manner. I am not sure that it violates the WP:userpage policies, but it probably does. — Lawrence King (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous account?

Hi there. I was just looking at your contribs and noticed that you have posted comments like this one that indicate deep familiarity with Wikipedia. Have you edited here previously using another account? Tiamuttalk 18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hiiiiii there, Momma's Little Helper, looking at your contributions, I´m left with the very same question as Tiamut...which I cannot see you have answered anywhere? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no previous accounts. Hope that answers your question. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I´m delighted, abSoLuTeLy delighted, I tell you, that this is the case. Most cooordially yours, Huldra (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Momma's Little Helper. You have new messages at Hohum's talk page.
Message added 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

(Hohum @) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Momma's Little Helper. You have new messages at Hohum's talk page.
Message added 14:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

(Hohum @) 14:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Lever. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the edit summary. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interview of Dr. Wolfgang Philipp Müller

Thanks for having woken up the VDM Publishing page and its discussion. There is no doubt that your iterative attempts to remove the interview of Dr. Wolfgang P. Müller from the reference section of this article will paradoxically contribute to keep this document alive.

Here is a testimony to the good health of this interview: http://ohyamazaki.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2010/02/post-f00f.html. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your problem is. I have no interest in the interview - I explained why I think a paraphrase of the interview's content is preferable to a lengthy quote from the primary source, per policy. If you have policy-based counter arguments, make them at the article's talk page. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. I was mainly intrigued by the motivation you have to remove the link to the archived pdf file of this interview: http://www.webcitation.org/5ngO4Y290. The issue of the choice between paraphrase and quote was secondary. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mountains in the Golan Heights

Hi. Thank you for your message. The draft article wasn't on my watch list and I wasn't aware of the discussion on the Talk page. I'll hold off moving anything until there's something resembling consensus. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Revert

I'm aware, which is why I've stopped trying. Though I don't see the people constantly reverting my edits catching hell, despite their edits being simply illogical. Oh well. I intend to take it to the discussion page as soon as I have time, hopefully you as well as the other editors will participate in the discussions so we can come to some sort of solution. Thanks, ElUmmah (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR note

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at George Galloway. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

You are edit warring over a single word and you have made no single attempt at discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That word is inappropriate for use in WP neutral voice, as I've explained in both my edit summary, and on the Talk page. Please continue the discussion there. Momma's Little Helper (talk)

I was not trying to be talking in no neutral voice, you were edit warring without any discussion, edit summaries is not explanation or discussion. I was comment here as a warning to you that I was about to report you if you continued. So as far as your assume good faith reply goes, you were edit warring without any discussion and if you continue I will report you.Off2riorob (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit summaries are most clearly an explanation, especially when prefaced by the word : "explanation". I have also explained my rationale on the Talk page. Please continue the discussion there. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:RolandR. If a user makes more than one revert, then there is the possibility of an edit war. However, it is not considered warring if the user reverts only once. Thank you. mechamind90 06:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was presumed? You presumed he only made one revert, because I did not sign my post? Are you for real? Momma's Little Helper (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning regarding BLP sources

This source: http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/judge-goldstone-sentenced-28-people-death which you used as your source for inserting the 28 people sentenced to death paragraph in Goldstone's biography doesn't meet our reliable source criteria for negative information in biographical articles.

Continuing to reinsert that material was contrary to Wikipedia policy on biographical articles on living persons.

ChrisO previously notified you [1] about the special Arbitration Committee restrictions coming from our earlier Israeli/Palestinian topics arbcom case. I have logged that notification at the case's notification section [2] as ChrisO failed to do so.

I'm still researching the later edits to the article and reviewing. However, I want to be clear, your earlier actions were pushing the envelope. If you continue them, with the prior warnings and notifications in place, you may be subject to a topic ban or blocks on editing altogether.

Please don't do that again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested

You might be interested to see this where you have been brought up. Breein1007 (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Momma's Little Helper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not abusing multiple accounts and am not a sock puppet of anyone

Decline reason:

Checkuser says otherwise. And please don't subst: the unblock template. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 03:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Momma's Little Helper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Actually, check user does not say otherwise. It says "likely", which is from "is", and is simply wrong.

Decline reason:

Checkuser says "Likely". That's good enough for me. Smashvilletalk 14:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So that's the standard of evidence you use? Something is "likely" and you assume it to be conclusive? Why bother with different levels of conformation then? Let's have unlikely and likely, and just block people on that basis. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it came back "unrelated", you were confirmed to have another account. The fact that you deny that does not add to your credibility. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not deny that, please read more carefully. Having another account is permitted, if it is not used abusively. Very early on, I made another account, wanting to separate my contributions to different topic areas into different accounts, made 3 edits with the other account on unrelated articles, then figured out it is too much hassle, and abandoned that account. What, exactly, was wrong with that? Momma's Little Helper (talk)
This looks like a denial to me. --Smashvilletalk 15:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I meant to write that "Checkuser says 'Confirmed', not 'likely'." I apologize for the typo...reason stil stands. --Smashvilletalk 14:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check user says "confirmed" for a legitimate 2nd account. Do you understand policy as it relates to what we are discussing? Momma's Little Helper (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a legitimate account if you deny having it until you are caught. --Smashvilletalk 15:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a legitimate 2nd account according to WP:SOCK. You do not, in fact, understand policy a it relates to this issue, and I suggest you let some other administrator, who better understands this issue take a look at it. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't cop to the fact that the other account is yours, then it's not a legitimate sockpuppet. And even if it were, the "Likely" result to NoCal100 means you're essentially screwed - it generally means that, geographically or IP wise, you're in close proximity to NoCal100. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 16:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've written above "Very early on, I made another account, wanting to separate my contributions to different topic areas into different accounts, made 3 edits with the other account on unrelated articles, then figured out it is too much hassle, and abandoned that account.". I've acknowledged it is/was my account - and I don't see anything wrong with having it, and you have not explained what, if anything, was wrong with it. And you are simply wrong about the account not being a legitimate second account unless it is acknowledged as such. WP:SOCK specifically allows for legitimate second accounts which are not disclosed as being related, as it says (a) "Legitimate uses...Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area.", and later (b) "Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternate account, editors using alternate accounts should provide links between the accounts".
As to your last comment, you're basically saying that you don't have any evidence, but being in the same huge metro area as a banned user is enough to get me blocked. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other things are taken into account by a Checkuser, MLH, but Checkuser concerns itself primarily with technical evidence. However, unless the behavioral aspect is strong enough, they cannot make a check to begin with. In short, you acted like NoCal100, someone requested a CU, CU came back Likely, you were blocked based upon that.
You may also be interested to know that the majority of admins do not have access to Checkuser logs and thus they have to rely on the Checkuser results to adjudicate blocks. My suggestion to you is to contact a Checkuser privately or the BASC at [[3]] to contest your block. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 18:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I 'acted like Nocal100'? How so? the "evidence" presented at the discussion here (of which no-one bothered to let me know about) consists of a list of 10 pages that both me and Nocal or his sockpuppets edited. Nocal edited hundreds of pages, as far as I can tell, so I am not to surprised to see that a handful of them were also edited by me. We did not make the same or even similar edits on those pages - e.g: on Marwan Barghouti I edited a single sentence to remove a POV and state neutral facts ("after a controversial trial he was sentenced to five life sentences in Israel." -> "He was tried and convicted on charges of murder, and sentenced to five life sentences. ") while Nocal added a requested reference to a fact unrelated to the trial. ; on Kfar Etzion massacre I made several reverts of a controversial edit, in support of at an editor (Zero0000 ) who would be considered "pro-Palestinian" in the I/P space, while Nocal removed some See Also links.
Anyway, thanks for the info on how to appeal this. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the block friend. Seems to be a common tactic. They can't tolerate any dissent or diversity of opinion. You either adopt a certain narrative or your blocked using bogus underhanded tactics. By the way, if you win your appeal (and I hope you do) make sure you don't live with 250km of somebody who shares your political views lest you be accused of being a sock.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for EContentplus

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of EContentplus

The article EContentplus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ephemeral program. No independent sources about the program. Does not meet WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusio (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]