YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels
Welcome
edit
|
Your user name
editHi, your user name is inappropriate, particularly given the area you're choosing to edit in. Please open another account to continue. You can ask a bureaucrat to move your contributions, or you can simply open a new account; the latter would make more sense given how few edits you have. You can read more here. Cheers, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi SlimVirgin i can sort of see how my name could be confused with User_talk:Cameltoe but isn't it up to User_talk:Cameltoe to make this request? Kammel Toe (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- That account isn't active. I'm requesting that you choose another name because this one is inappropriate, as you know. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- It would be an improvement, for sure. Are you willing to change it? There's a procedure we can go through if you're not, which may involve you being blocked if you decline (though I'm not sure of that quite yet), but if you're willing to change, then there's no problem. Given the small number of edits you've made, that would seem to make most sense. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes please go ahead and change it to 'YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels' or let me know what i have to do to change it. This is very much appreciated. Kammel Toe (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. :) You can either request a name change from a bureaucrat at Wikipedia:Changing username, or just open a new account. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleting warnings
editYou might want to know that deleting user warnings (as 67.173.108.154 has taken to doing) is indeed acceptable. See, for example, here: "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." It seems rude or arrogant, but it's not really so bad. Just FYI. Regards — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Woops, my mistake, sorry. Also there's this:
If a user removes a comment from their own talk page it should not be restored. By removing the comment the user has verified that they have read it. The comment is still in the page history, so it is not necessary to keep it visible just to show that the user received the message. It is also wrong to force them to keep it there as a sort of "Badge of Shame".
Whats the policy if warnings are restored? Should they be un-restored? YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sheesh, I dunno. Probably the best thing to do is go over there and revert your restoration yourself, with an apologetic edit summary. If it's already been re-deleted (by the user or somebody else), you can just leave a note admitting your minor mistake. (The user can delete that note, too, then. ;-) ) — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for commenting. YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Proactive policing
edit
A tag has been placed on Proactive policing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may 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) 04:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- An article must meet minimum standards before it even becomes "live". The article as it was met none of them. Be careful of course that the article does not include WP:OR, or fit better under Wiktionary. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
edit
Message added 01:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Speedy deletion requests
editI don't know why you attempted to delete Con Kolivas' related articles, but obviously they aren't deletable under WP:SPEEDY criteria. -- intgr [talk] 07:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- those are hoax articles?YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Then why did you tag them with {{db-nocontent}} ? -- intgr [talk] 07:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- huh??????
- Then why did you tag them with {{db-nocontent}} ? -- intgr [talk] 07:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- The deletion template that you used is for articles with no content. And Con Kolivas certainly is not a hoax. -- intgr [talk] 07:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to propose them for deletion, then you can use the WP:AFD deletion process, but I'd say there is no chance in hell. -- intgr [talk] 07:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- The article looks to me like gibberish - not exactly sure about its subject. How do you determine whether the article warrants a speedy nomination or if the speedy nomination should be removed? YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- The full criteria is listed at WP:SPEEDY. Generally speedy deletion is only used for new articles, or articles with very few editors, that have obvious issues. For anything else there's WP:PROD and WP:AFD. The articles that you wanted to delete have a quite long history and cite numerous sources. If you think that the article is badly written then you're invited to improve it. -- intgr [talk] 10:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Violence Against Women article
edit{{help}}
could someone please modify
Government agencies often disregard the victim's right to freedom of association with their perpetrator
to
Government agencies often disregard the victim's right to freedom of association with their perpetrator
I.E. delete the "s" from the URL as per my note on the talk page
thanks. YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- On which article(s)? Which talk page? Any reason that you cannot make this change yourself? Chzz ► 04:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- Done, although I don't know why you didn't do it yourself. The article is semi-protected, but you should be autoconfirmed, so you should be able to edit it. Svick (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- when i hit edit i get the content below YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Editing Violence against women (section) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Page notice Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it.
23:21, 13 April 2009 Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) protected Violence against women [edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) (Edit warring / Content dispute: Ongoing repeat targeting by YesOn8 / DavidYork71 socks) (hist) View full log
- Yeah, but you are autoconfirmed user, so you can edit it. Svick (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of E-Mentor Corps, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://advantagebizmag.com/archives/3955. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikiproject Economics
editGiven your area of interest, you may want to join our little group over at the Economics Wikiproject. We answer questions and discuss stuff that's related to Economics articles and deal with issues that come up. LK (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you so much :-) I would love to be part of the Economics Wikiproject - what do i have to do to join? YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Blocked as a sock puppet
edit
You may contest this block by adding the text
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.- Thank you for your feedback. I think those who would like to volunteer their time on Wikipedia for the purpose of participating in wiki-litigation should be given a chance to participate in wiki-litigation and similarly those who would like to volunteer for a civil purpose should be able to do so without the need for wiki-litigation. YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The entirety of published evidence against me is from Deskana who states: "Possible/unclear whether this user is related to the above accounts." No other evidence has been published for me to contest.
Decline reason:
You do not appear to actually deny that you are a sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karmaisking/Archive. Sandstein 06:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
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.
YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not a sock puppet and have no connection to Karmaisking
Decline reason:
Disingenuous response to query below and the random swipe at another reviewer does little to alleviate my concern that this is a “good hand” editor on a different set of articles. A much better unblock request would be needed here. Kuru (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
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.
- Looking through all the history now. Kuru (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked for more input. It would also help if you could explain your rather odd comment here. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was trying to say being blocked hurt my feelings however now realize my comment was in breach of AGF. If I am unblocked I will try much harder to comply with AGF. YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- BTW speaking of odd comments how's this from Sandstein. Woops, another one of my little accidents! I really need to learn a little self-control..... YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- This was not helpful. Kuru (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was trying to say being blocked hurt my feelings however now realize my comment was in breach of AGF. If I am unblocked I will try much harder to comply with AGF. YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've asked for more input. It would also help if you could explain your rather odd comment here. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My username sounds similar to suspected sockpuppets who edit existing economics articles rather than writing new economics articles. Please unblock so I can change my username to a much more distinctive one - unlikely to be confused with any other name - and write a new article on the most fundamental topic in economics. Once I have written an article on the most fundamental topic in economics it will be clear I am no sockpuppet.
Decline reason:
None of this resolves the concerns with your edit habits, which I concur are problematic, so none of this is a reason to unblock. DMacks (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block violates WP blocking policy. The bock is for "Abusing multiple accounts." The blocking policy states: "Users requesting blocks should supply credible evidence of the circumstances warranting a block."
Decline reason:
This unblock request violates WP:WIKILAWYER. Your editing history substantially matches that of a blocked person. The connection between your behavior at this account and your behavior at other accounts is compelling to the point that it is very clear who you are. You have been provided with these reasons, and ignoring them in your unblock request does not make it go away. At this point, your only recourse is to appeal your block to the Arbitration Committee, as described at WP:BASC. You have receieved 4 investigations of your case, and all investigating admins have concluded that this account should remain blocked. From here forward, please contact ArbCom for future appeals. Jayron32 03:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
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.