User talk:Copyedeye

I was alerted to an edit war occurring on Press TV. I have reviewed your actions and while you are technically guilty of a WP:3RR violation I have elected to not apply sanctions against you, as your editing seemed generally constructive and in good faith. However please try to avoid becoming engaged in edit wars in future and bring such matters to the attention of administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Manning (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of David Casavis

A tag has been placed on David Casavis 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of David Casavis

I have nominated David Casavis, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Casavis. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ttonyb (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Press TV

Could you please join in discussion before adding large parts of 'controversial' information. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hello. This is to notify you that Sockpuppet investigation has been filed against you. See here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked 1 week for sock puppetry. (blocked by MuZemike 20:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

Allegations of "sockpuppetry" by Seddon against me are untrue. I have only one account, not multiple accounts. I started my account some time after I began to edit, and did not always log in thereafter, as I did not know this made a difference to anyone. I never tried to hide my identity - that's why I didn't care if someone could see my IP number. Happy to conform to any policies wikipedia has in this regard.

Decline reason:

Editor has not returned in 7 days to respond to question. Recent block has nothing to do with WP:SOCK, it is related to WP:MEAT, which although related, are not the same. As such, unblock request did not address the actual issue. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:10, 3 February 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 block has nothing to do with sockpuppetry - the current block is for meatpupptry used to gain false consensus. Would you like to re-do the unblock request, or is it best to just decline it as it does not address the issue? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to re-read WP:MEAT, as the accusations in your new unblock show a complete lack of understanding of it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

{{unblock|I thank BWilkins for his e-mails, and I apologize for the late response. BWilkins and Seddon make a distinction without a difference - as far as I can tell, "meatpuppet" is just a more insulting way to say "sockpuppet." The "sockpuppet/meatpuppet" charge is that I am Gary Weiss or acting on his behalf. That is not true. I made one brief comment on the Gary Weiss article talkpage, a comment that is reasonable, and I was immediately banned "indefintely" from wikipedia for this as a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of Weiss, which I definitely am not. I have only one username, not multiple usernames, and I do all my edits by myself, not at the direction of or in collaboration with others. I regret that this comment caused such a strong reaction, and I certainly have no intention of editing that page ever again.}}.

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).

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

Request reason:

At the suggestion of BWilkins, I re-read what I could find on WP:MEAT, which is a subsection on the WP:SOCK page. I am not an expert on wikipedia procedures, but my understanding is that SEDDON objected to a comment I made on a talk page because she thought I was a "sockpuppet" or alias of Gary Weiss. I am NOT an alias of Gary Weiss, nor did I edit according to instructions from Gary Weiss, nor do I recruit others to edit wikipedia articles. Regarding the comment to which SEDDON took objection: others apparently felt the same way I did, as the objection I made was deemed valid, and has been followed in the article as it currently stands. I have made good-faith contributions to wikipedia in the past, and would like to continue to do so. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Waiting for a response to my comment below, about the Gary Weiss article. Open a new request when you have an answer. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 12 February 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.

Hello Copyedeye. Can you please clarify this edit to the Gary Weiss article? It seems this is what makes you look like a sock of Mantanmoreland. Can you explain how you go from an interest in Press TV, an Iranian channel, to suddenly want to keep a certain court case from being mentioned in Gary Weiss's article? You supported Stetsonharry's reversion, and he is another editor who is now blocked as a Mantanmoreland sock. EdJohnston (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Thank you, EdJohnston, for giving me another opportunity to explain that I am not a sock of Mantanmoreland or Stesonharry or Gary Weiss. A couple months ago, I got copies of Weiss' books "Born to Steal" and "Wall Street Versus America." I looked the author up on google and found his wikipedia website and info about Julian Robertson, which I remembered from reading about the case many years ago. There was an edit war on the Weiss page about whether the lawsuit deserved mention. I remembered that this was a nuisance lawsuit by Robertson, who was attempting thereby to stifle a journalist. I see no reason why an ancient lawsuit settled for no money should be mentioned in the article, so I inserted a comment to that effect. As far as I could tell, many people felt the same way, and wrote similar comments. I did not spend a great deal of time analyzing the situation, maybe 5 minutes. If there is any common thread between that comment and my interest in Press TV, I would say only that there have been similar efforts by editors working on the Press TV article to stifle or twist important facts. Over the years, I have contributed to wikipedia articles on many subjects, ranging from music to history to literature. I always enjoyed clicking on random articles and copyediting them. I became a daily contributor when I noticed how Press TV's wiki entry was lifted in toto from a press release by the network. Whenever I attempted to provide some facts to balance those ridiculous statements, editors from Tehran quickly jumped in to erase everything I corrected and replace it with unsourced propaganda."}}.

If you have edited Wikipedia before, it would increase our confidence that you are a good-faith editor if you would share some of the IDs which you have used previously. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Sorry, EdJohnston, I'm not sure I understand how using other IDs would increase your confidence. I have never used any other ID, nor will I ever use another ID. Wouldn't that be sockpuppeting? Before I registered my username, all that would appear when I edited was an IP address from whatever computer I used. I don't remember any of those numbers. I do remember making corrections to articles on various composers and authors, and also correcting some glaring errors in science articles, or articles that appeared when I clicked "random" for fun. I look things up on wikipedia all the time, and when I see something wrong, or lacking a reference, I try to fill the gap."}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Although future edits will be the real test, at this point it appears that we are no longer preventing anything by keeping this block active

Request handled by: (talk→ BWilkins ←track)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thanks for your response regarding any usage of previous accounts. You've answered my questions, but at present I do not feel comfortable doing an unblock. I've reactivated the unblock template so that other admins will see your request, and they can do whatever they think best. I will leave a note for User:Seddon, the last blocking admin, as to how things stand. Seddon is sporadically active, so I'll also notify User:MuZemike, the previous blocking admin. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]