User talk:Sniperscout

O.K. Any comments? —Sniperscout (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Call —responses[edit]

Please submit comments here.

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/None Less Than Heroes: The Honor Flight Story.
To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're a new user here, so I thought I'd direct you towards Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. They might be able to help you find more sources for the film. Since it was only recently screened, sources are likely to be slow in coming but they can help find stuff that you might not have otherwise discovered. Plus it's also a good group to join if you like editing or creating movie entries.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment[edit]

O.K., I'll comment. Is this your first account with Wikipedia? The Interior (Talk) 07:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came aboard long time ago as Hired Gun but didn't start account and stayed away for while. Is this in response to putting citations in Tachash in answer to banner request? If it is, then you need to understand that I had just finished checking them and thought I was done when your message came up. (a few links didn't respond, but they can be fixed, otherwise I haven't any other plans there.) --Sniperscout (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/None Less Than Heroes: The Honor Flight Story.
To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

None Less Than Heroes: The Honor Flight Story, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A-1 —Thank you. (I am honored.) A lot of guys will appreciate it. --Sniperscout (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more reliable sources[edit]

Hi! I noticed that someone approved your article already, but I still took a look at it. The only problem the article really has is that most of the sources are either press releases that were released to the papers or links to the DVD itself and the film/organization's website. These won't really count towards notability unfortunately and you still need more reliable sources to prove the claims in the press releases. Be aware that although I left it up, things that just talk about film showings and where you can buy the DVDs are considered to be more of a trivial source than a reliable one. I did remove the links to the official website as sources and tried to cite them with the trivial sources, moving the official link to the bottom. Just be careful since if someone decides to list this for deletion, it'll be the lack of reliable sources that will be the reason why.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Appreciate your alert. If policy, then delete. Task completed. Thanks. --Sniperscout (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I think it merits an article, but it's something you've got to be careful of. There are people who are pretty strict, even stricter than I am when it comes to this stuff.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

More meritorious (better) would be an article about the "Honor Flights" phenom. I'm not qualified. --Sniperscout (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely as a sock of User:LittleOldManRetired, who was blocked as a sock of User:Michael Paul Heart. CU evidence provided by User:Tnxman307. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not the only user of the computer. My own contributions have not disrupted the Wikipedia. The block seems to have been occasioned by my providing reasonably verifiable additional citations to article Tachash in response to banner @ top of article requesting them. When I finished (6 edits) went on to other articles. My history of contributions demonstrates my good faith. Only came back to use link to cited source to read it, saw new edits and began response edit (see Talk:Tachash#Josephus). "Edit Conflict" on attempt to submit response edit alerted me look at view history and talk page. Saw notice that 2 new edits by IP User:69.66.209.3 were purported to be sockpuppetry, and cancelled planned edit as "unnecessary" (N/A). Discovered block this afternoon when looked at article Guadalcanal Diary#Plot intending to provide summary that film. Found notice I am blocked as sockpuppet. Have noticed in history of article User:Drmies and others persist in reverting brief addn info edits and addn citations edits all the way back to the version/s having same request banner asking for additional citations, with edit summary claim of sockpuppetry vandalism or "too much detail"—also noticed apparent insistence (against NPOV) in first sentence of article that word tachash is an animal referred to in Bible when in fact other sources (citations) do not support this (they support a tachash color instead)—it is fact that term tachash is referred to in Bible, but different interpretations. Think they won't allow intro and citations to reflect this NPOV, and charge me with sockpuppetry disruption (after only 6 edits), and with block evasion, as way to deflect attention and block requested legit citations and NPOV they don't want. The revision I last submitted is hardly disruptive, and it's short (not like User:Hermitstudy / User:Michael Paul Heart). Would like to restore it as better NPOV version, and go on to Guadalcanal Diary. --Sniperscout (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The behavioural evidence is so strong as to be very persuasive on its own. Add to that the checkuser evidence, and we have proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Your attempt to imply that the other disruptive editors were acquaintances of yours who share your computer, if true, would mean that you were a meatpuppet, as the similarity is beyond what could reasonably be expected to come independently even from friends with similar interests and opinions. Almost certainly a sockpuppet account, but if not then a meatpuppet, and in either case no unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Watson, I'm at loss, here, to grasp how I am supposed to be a "disruptive editor". Please explain how the 6 edits I submitted to Tachash are disruptive. How are they "behavioural evidence"? All I did was put in additional citations requested (compare with previous version), then went on to something else. I had no real further interest in article. That is my only defense. (And I still have this: the dignity that at least none of my other contributions has provoked a charge of "disruptive editing" or has been said to constitute such behavioral evidence; and that too is a kind of behavioral defense in my favor. I ask you to consider that.) --Sniperscout (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to leave a Talkback template on your talk page but block prevented it. --Sniperscout (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Having just now read it, I would like to point out that User:Drmies edit history at article Tachash matches description in Wikipedia:BRD misuse#Edit ninjas, and that my own edits to Tachash article were not disruptive—did not degrade Wikipedia's reliability as reference source but supported it with citations to verifiable sources (multiple POV that doesn't misinform or mislead readers). The shared IP address I have been using appears to have been taken as pretext to charge sockpuppetry solely in order to block reasonable good faith edits of verifiable sources that Drmies and his buddies apparently don't want included in the article, in editting that looks like tag team behavior—look at Tachash talk: "Josephus", "Not in the Bible", and "Rebuttal—how the article could be improved (and why it should be deleted entirely)". They apparently even blocked an entire Senior Citizen Center computer lab (see that "talk page") because of a former Baptist Pastor's critique of the article's defects, claiming that he too is a sockpuppet. (He was right about a strong reaction!) I wanted this on record. --Sniperscout (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. As there is Checkuser evidence, your best course of action would be to contact WP:BASC; continued unblock requests like this one will rapidly result in disabling of our talkpage access. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Former Baptist Pastor, Senior Citizen Center, is right—there is something sinister at work here. --Sniperscout (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2012 (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.

Baptist Pastor[edit]

Just read "Not in the Bible" and "how the article could be improved" and laughed my butt off!

Padre—Dead-on!!—you burned 'em!

Joe407—I don't think Drmies and his buddies will allow you or anyone else to improve Tachash. Looks like he even blocked an entire senior citizen center computer lab because he didn't like what the Padre said. That's a strong reaction. --Sniperscout (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, don't edit unblock requests after they've been declined; make your comments below them. Secondly, another comment like that and I'll disable your talkpage access. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]