User talk:Piperdown

Twiggy article

Hi piperdown, I'm actually not sure what happened with the Twiggy article. I was actually just trying to change the categories to clean up the categorizations for the America's next top model category. Maybe I accidentally edited an older version and it reverted to that? Sorry for the problem, it won't happen again. Calliopejen 17:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Simon article

Hello Mr. Piperdown! I do not know what your intention is on editing the article about Paul Simon. But removing the by far best internet site about Paul Simon, where all fans meet daily only shows me that you maybe do not know much about Paul Simon? Could that be true? Check out what www.paul-simon.info is - and compare it to the official site www.paulsimon.com The visitors have agreed that www.paul-simon.info should be the official site to promote Paul Simon (no one is visiting www.paulsimon.com - as there is absolute NO information)

Sorry, I am going through biographies and finding many of them have "fan sites" that turn out to be self-promotional sites not affiliated with their subjects. Wikipedia's rules discourage link to such sites as they are often commercially trying to profit from celebrities and contain material sometimes potentially damaging to these celebrities. If that site is not commercial in any way than I apologize for the removal. Just trying to improve biographies through WP:RS.Piperdown 12:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments in "Talk:naked short selling"

Concerning your comments in naked short-selling: I was trying to be courteous and polite, and offered praise sincerely for what I considered to be an editing job well done. There was no intent to be "patronizing" and I must ask you to tone down the heat level and avoid making comments attacking other editors. Please keep in mind the requirements of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thank you.--Samiharris 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, I'm being civil, your "praise" was sarcastic in tone, patronizing, and out of line.Piperdown 16:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how you could possibly read "sacrcasm" into remarks intended to be conciliatory. You appear to be trying to gain an advantage by putting other editors on the defensive. Please assume faith in other users as required by WP:AGF.--Samiharris 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You appear to be trying to gain an advantage" is a personal attack itself under your own criteria. let me cut to the chase Sam. Here's what 2 editors including yourself did:

1) Removed a sourced edit from the SEC that directly applied to the topic. Reason was for no long quotes. So instead of editing the section, you removed it.

2) This was despite half of the article was a direct quote from the same SEC site, which you didn't seem to want to apply the same criteria for some reason.

3) After taking into consideration that your comment about my edit was correct in that it shouldn't be a copy and paste from the site, I added it back it in a summarized form and was not inappropriately long for the section. It was also a recent change that updated the SEC's Reg SHO comments, so went into the Recent Developments section.

4) you then again completely removed the edit, claiming it was Original Research, despite the link provided as source, and your own ealier acknowledgement that the oringal edit was a direct quote from the SEC site.

5) Another editor, citing that it was dubious that it was a recent development despite its 10/10/06 date on the SEC site, completely removed it again, claiming it was information that was already availble on the SEC site. No duh. There is a lot of information on the SEC site that is already on their pages, but not represented here at all.

6) The entire section on the "NASAA" section is WP:OR from a site that does not meet WP:RS. Yet you don't have a problem with that. This OR source use is dominated by the "debunking" side of the issue, but the other 40 pages in the document and the experts cited in it on the other side of the issue are nowwhere to be found in this article. Either summarize the source in a balanced manner or leave the whole part out anyway as it violates WP:RS WP:OR

7) On edit into this thing, you warn me about 3 reverts rule just for my reinserting a well sourced section that you deleted (reverted) without just cause. Well sourced material that could be edited to meet WP criteria should be edited, not removed because it might not be consistent in POV with the rest of the history of your edits.

That's enough, I will continue to edit this article as well sourced facts become notable, be they "pro" or "con". I hope other editors will do the same without making false claims about other editors' use of sources to game a block for by reverts. I won't play any victim games with editors who completely blank well sourced edits while hypocritically not blanking out other text that meets the exact same criteria cited for removal. Piperdown 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not fairly stated the statements that I made in the talk page. Let's go back and review.

It is not true that my "Reason was for no long quotes. So instead of editing the section, you removed it." and that my next reason was simply "original research." You have entirely omitted my central reason for disagreeing with your edits.

My explanation for my first edit was as follows: "I also removed the lengthy quotation from Regulation SHO, which was unnecessary in my opinion and much too technical and jargon-y." That was and is true. The fact that it was "sourced" is beside the point.

After you insisted upon retaining the material, I said, "I strongly disagree with your adding that lengthy excerpt from Regulation SHO. It clogs up an article that is already top heavy with jargon, and it is unnecessary detail." That was and is correct.

You then summarized the same material, and I said that "Though now summarized, which is good, I still question its significance. Was there some kind of change in policy in October 2006 regarding Reg. SHO? I searched the SEC website and could find none. I then looked for articles mentioning this and could find none. So I would suggest to please provide some article sourcing meeting Wikipedia criteria. As written currently, it falls squarely under the category of "original research" which is verboten under Wiki rules."

Whether this is "original research" or not is a side issue. You have yet to address my central point, which is that this repetitious and unnecessary detail that gives the mistaken impression that something happened in October 2006. Nothing happened in October 2006, yet you add it under "recent developments."

Even if you put it somewhere else, the issue remains as I stated it. That is my opinion, and of course I could be wrong, but it is important to have a good-faith dialogue and correctly state what other people I object to your oversimplifying and distorting my position, as well as to your constant stream of insults and personal atttacking terms.--Samiharris 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the article at the talk page.--Mantanmoreland 00:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:"constant stream of insults " - I have done no such thing. And your removal for WP:OR did in fact occur, and was in fact baseless. It is not a side issue. I put the direct material in, and that was blanked for 'jargon'. I summarizeed in layman's terms and then the excuse for blanking is OR, when in fact the summarizing did not contain any slant or OR on the original source. The material should be in there, whether it was "recent developement" or not. If you consider it redundant, please show me where else in the article the SEC is cited as plainly stating their rules for location and borrowing shares prior to short sales, that should legally prevent naked shorting from occuring. I haven't distorted your position, I could care less about your position. What I do know is that agressive blanking with different baseless reasons each time, and paired with a similar blanking from another editor that shows a similar patttern of editing on the article is a great way to bait someone into getting blocked for 3 reverts when they restore edits that have been blanked (not even attempted to modify) with progressively disingenuous reasons each time. Good faith is assumed until one is blanked on multiple occasions for bogus reasons. I am sorry if you feel this is a person attack, I don't know or care who you are so this isn't personal and is not an "attack". I can tell my wikicareer is going to short if I let people walk all over well sourced edits with a blank brush. Good day.Piperdown 02:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piperdown, your comments are not only wildly off-base, but they are off-base in the wrong place. The place to be off-base about naked short selling is in the talk page of naked short selling. If you're going to have a nervous breakdown concerning one paragraph of that article, please do it there so that other editors can read your comments.--Mantanmoreland 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: "If you're going to have a nervous breakdown" Nice. That's just special. I'll post on my talk page in response to posts on it as I please. Thanks for the advise and personal attack. Piperdown 04:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: "The place to be off-base about naked short selling". Great. Now there's a fantasticly productive slant on my edits. And they say that wikipedia article watch dogs aren't receptive to well sourced input.Piperdown 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Your user ID evolved into a full-scale edit warrior after three days on Wikipedia, so it's pretty obvious this was anything but your first nervous breakdown.--Mantanmoreland 04:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I began editing on wiki on March 8 after the essjay thing. I'm sure you'll find a lot of 'warriors' started editing wikipedia, as well as kids and vandals who found they could run roughshod over public people here, after reading about this wild west of publishing. I am still amazed that something like this even exists. And thanks for your characterization of me as an edit warrior. Wikipedia needs a lot of "edit warriors" on the hundreds of biography entries that are full of child pranks, vendetta vandalism, and vanity puff pieces. All married with links to websites trying to drum up business from vulturing off famous people. I look forward to improving wikipedia as a collection of accurate sources. Thanks for the lovely welcome, remember, self-projection is a difficult art to master.Piperdown 04:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, your edit warring began one week after you began editing, when you began your blatant POV pushing in naked short selling and when you responded to a compliment from another editor with a personal attack.[1] I appreciate your frankness in acknowledging that you are edit warring, and that you view yourself as being on some kind of personal crusade. --Mantanmoreland 04:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not warring or crusading, POV pushing or attacking. Inclusion of sourced material into wikipedia articles should be the goal of editors everywhere. But thanks for the spirited contention and blanking of sourced material. If you're trying to bait me into something, you're not going to have any luck at it. Happy editing.Piperdown 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of sourced material into wikipedia articles should be the goal of editors everywhere. Wrong. WP:NOT. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." --Mantanmoreland 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piper, I look forward to the baseball edits you mentioned. Please let me know when you make the changes in Roger Clemens, as he isn't on my watch list. --Christofurio 12:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gere

Hi. I agreed with your removal of unsubstantiated allegations from the Gere article. Your removal was reverted by user Sparkzilla. I undid the reversion and left a talk page comment explaining the grounds for this removal, but I expect this deletion to be contested and probably reverted. Thanks. FNMF 17:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes

I have rolled back your recent edit to the above discussion as it does not bear upon either the Rfa, User:Gracenotes, or the (off subject) debate over WP:NPA. That is not to say that your concerns are trivial, but only that this was the wrong forum. LessHeard vanU 19:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your edit, but to each his own. I think it is relevant information that readers of this "protest" by certain editors should know.Piperdown 19:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I am sorry but I don't recall removing any of your edits. The link you gave me comes up empty. Can you give me more information? Like what page or what date? Thanks, Crum375 04:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't recall ever removing any of your edits. I did remove a troll edit earlier today - but it was an anon IP, not a logged in editor. Was that you? Crum375 04:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't trolled anyone today or any other day. So why was that edit by user:slimvirgin completely erased from that entry's edit history, and why is your name the only editing on the deletion log for that page since after that user posted that edit summary accusation in the diff I provided? Let me say this again. It was not my edit that was erased from wikihistory. It was that user's own edit (and edit summary) erased from their own userpage. How can that be done? The diff shows an link to a deletion log for that user page, and you're the only one deleting/restoring on it in months. Piperdown 04:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what I did earlier today was to remove an edit by a troll with an anon IP. You are saying: "It was not my edit that was erased from wikihistory. It was that user's own edit (and edit summary) erased from their own userpage". So if it was not your own edit, why would you care? And are you sure you were not the anon IP that I deleted? Crum375 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As related information (as I saw your post on Crum375's page thanks to that stupid auto watch list) crum375 and SlimVirgin do a lot of similar editing/tag reverting. I'd wonder what constitutes "troll" that was written by the user themselves and instead of just deleting needs purging from the history as well? I've also had SV self delete a request for admin review, so I'd really start to wonder if there's abuse of admin privileges going on. NathanLee 11:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something stinks with this. This edit [2] I was accused in a that edit's summary of being a sockpuppet [3]. Another user saw it on ANI and was equally perplexed [4] Crum375 is the only name on that userpage's deletion log since May 27th. The edit by SV was there a few days ago. I don't know the innards of how some of these things works on wikipedia, so maybe Crum375 really didn't erase evidence of that edit from ca. 5/27, but the response was unusual to say the least. Maybe someone else did it and left no paper trail. But edit 133916506 from SV's userpage just got wished away, and I got no apology for the time it was up there falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry, and no response about it since 5/27. I should stop expecting some of these people to change their behavior.Piperdown 12:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what can be done with admin rights.. I also don't know why one user would be deleting things on another's talk page.. But that would apply for normal editors. But I can say there are definitely people playing the game on here to push a political, racial, activist etc view into as many articles as possible and to bait people into doing something that gets them kicked off. Trouble is once someone is an admin or have been around a while it tends to get a bit orwell's animal farm (or in this case: 1984-esque with the possible deleting history to suit). It's taken me from a "wikipedia rocks" to "wikipedia is fundamentally broken while this abuse of the system continues". I can only hope that these abrasive editors get a clue and learn how wikipedia's supposed to work. And don't expect an apology, that wouldn't be staying in character now would it? ;) NathanLee 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Phillips

Thank you for cleaning up the rest of the Stone Phillips article. Twohlford 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've yet to find a TV news personality article on wikipedia that wasn't an abomination of editing and sourcing. Piperdown 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News-Press Blog Reference Deletions

The Craig Smith Blog simply is a reliable source for Santa Barbara issues. Indeed, he is now a columnist for one of the local papers (the Sound), although typically only one of his blog entries is now published per week in that media. I'd like to revert those edits. I would suggest that you discuss changes as big as those that you made prior to making the changes. In some cases Blogabarbara and some other blogs are reliable as well, particularly when they summarize references to standard media. Best, snug 11:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a blog, it's not "simply" a reliable source, unless the blog is used as a reference for Smith's own biography. Sorry, that's simply WP:RS policy. The blog was also used a redundant source in almost every case it was footnoted in a pair with a publication. That smacks of unneccessary blog promotion above and beyond the fact of using a blog as a RS. Piperdown 12:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smith is a recognized media expert who appeared in other media prior to the News-Press controversy. I believe that makes his blog meet the guideline. As for the policy, he is a reliable source. I am not promoting his blog, but his blog has become a crucial and reliable Santa Barbara source, that is why it is published once a week in a local newspaper in Santa Barbara. In any case, removing the references without prior discussion was a bad idea, because in this case, that blog is a crucial local reliable source. Many items are only available on his blog (particularly on legal analysis; he is a law professor). You could have started a discussion requesting me to removing redundant cases where the blog was repeating info in the print media, by the way, before deleting 50 or so references. snug 13:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether you consider that person to be reliable, his blog is technically not a reliable source as it is not editorally oversighted by a publisher. Removing violations of WP:RS does not requiring consultation with article owners.Piperdown 13:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just me that considers Smith reliable, it is a consensus in Santa Barbara. He is regularly cited and followed up by the print media in Santa Barbara, has journalist credentials, and his blog is published once a week now in a local paper. WP:RS is a guideline with allowable exceptions, and further, Smith is a nationally-recognized expert with prior publications on the matter, so citation of his blog is actually consistent with WP:RS... see WP:V#SELF. Deleting so many references should have caused you to think twice and discuss in advance. I think reverting your changes is the proper measure now. snug 13:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If his blog is published in a local paper, post the references to the local paper. Problem solved. The issue isn't the cred of the person, it's the use of a blog that isn't editorally oversighted by a reliable source publication, regardless of whether God himself authored the blog. Piperdown 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V#SELF guideline allows for blogs of recognized experts to be cited as reliable sources. The policy is to have reliable sources, and Smith's blog is reliable, and God's would be too. The way to solve this problem is to revert the article. snug 14:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. You seem pretty intent on including 50 redundant source cites from a blog. Expert? This isn't Watergate. The article is out of hand with citing from that blog where in almost every case there's already a cite from a newspaper. I'd hope you have no COI in citing that blog of an "expert" 50 times in duplication next to a newspaper cite. Have at it, anyone else would surely look at the citing of that article with bemusement to say the least. Piperdown 16:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reverting, and if you like, point out the redundant Craig Blog links. I agree some are redundant and replaceable with just the link to an edited news source. But many of the cites are not redundant; deleting them all was too blunt an instrument to deal with the problem you perceived. The "News-Press" controversy is not Watergate, I agree , but it is not trivial either; a large NLRB hearing on a raft of rather serious potential violations of the law is due to start in mid-August. I don't think you took the time to investigate the differences between the Craig Smith blog citation and the other citation before summarily deleting the Craig Smith one. So the way to solve this is to revert than sift through the references and prune them. I'm not Craig Smith, I don't make money from anything Craig Smith does, actually I don't know the man. He has gained respect of a lot more people than just me through his incisive and accurate articles. snug 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkzilla page comments

Sock puppets are allowed, if they are not disruptive (and fulfill some other requirements, see WP:SOCK). I outed Sparkzilla on the COI noticeboard - I showed he had an undisclosed conflict of interest, and that it was very likely he was either Mark Devlin himself or somehow affiliated with him. After realizing he couldn't bluff his way out of the extensive evidence I had posted (an admin, MangoJuice, told him to confess his affiliation), he confessed he indeed is Mark Devlin. The problems did unfortunately not cease there, as you might or might not be aware of.

I think you should take a closer look at Devlin and his edits. [5] My CoI posting is a good place to start. Sparkzilla has time and time again tried to further the interests of his company here at Wikipedia. You should have a look at the evidence and then I think you should think twice about defending him again.

I know the admin's are often unjust - I was myself banned by JzG for "disruptive editing", but in reality because I were a self-admitted sock puppet, without breaking any actual rules. JzG and a small group of admin's I suspect were close to him tried and re-instate my ban after another admin had verified that I indeed had not done anything against the rules, motivated by little else than pride (seemingly). I do not have much sympathy for SlimVirgin either, after following some of her wiki "career" here. I wouldn't be surprised if she's lying and distorting the truth here and there when it comes to Sparkzilla's case, but matter of fact is, Sparkzilla is a "wikipedia bad guy" and he does deserve everything that's coming his way - he should be perfectly happy with the leniency offered to him through a topic ban, after all the stunts he has tried to pull off.

I too do worry about the procedure of things here but the problem isn't this particular case but the entire system. Attack the system and the admins all you want, but don't do it in a misguided attempt to help Sparkzilla. Best, Heatedissuepuppet 13:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Adam sk" comments on Jim Cramer (moved from my user page)

The following was posted by "Adam sk" on my user page. It has been reproduced below as moved from there:

Adam sk wrote: Well, maybe this is a sign that I'm the only person out there who actually watches The Tim Russert Show. No, they certainly don't put the video or transcripts up on their crappy website.

A couple of the facts I added can be confirmed at the Mad Money website. Other than that, I have no idea where you could confirm the stuff he said on the show. Maybe in one of his books? (From Adam sk as seen here [6])

Odd deletion from Manchester page

Hello Piperdown, can see you have some colourful discussions going on here but just noticed you've deleted (what I felt was) some quite useful material from the Manchester pages. You cut out the mention of Jimmy Saville's role as the first DJ at the Ritz. Not sure why you deleted it so I would be interested to hear why you felt it wasnt relevant!?

If you dont think it belongs there do you think I should make a new page about early DJing? And Link it to Manchester pages? I'm quite new on here so I submit to your wisdom - by the way I'm not being patronising or anything sinister, I just wanna be a good wikipedian and know what the motives were and make sure any changes I make are in line with wiki rules etc

Cheers,

-) Signed mapmark 23 july 07

That was a long time ago, and if I cut it out it's because it probably didn't have a reliable source. Don't remember. Besides, I recall much of that information was to go in a stub page about music of manchester. That was way to much minutiae for the main manchester page, even if it did have a reliable source. Piperdown 23:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for that Piperdown, makes perfect sense, was certainly a long page at that point and definately needed some sheering. As my info was about something quite relevant to that cities history, I'll make sure it's fully sourced and chuck it in the "Music" pages as you suggest. (sorry it was quite a long time ago - been away for a bit and missed quite a few people changes to my contribs). All the best, User:mapmark 11:24 24 July 2007

Dan Dorfman

Hi Piperdown. You are off to such a great start on the article Dan Dorfman that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 13:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, jreferree. I'm blushing. I bet you say that to all the editors. [7]. Nonetheless, thanks for the form letter. Piperdown 13:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sausalito

Nice job editing the Sausalito article - Trapper 02:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Calandra in pump and dump

Please do not add Thom Calandra as an example of pump and dump stock swindles. What he did was reprehensible and illegal, but was not pump and dump, which involves dissemination of false and misleading information, usually by brokerages. What Calandra engaged in was a similar practice called "scalping," which involves front running of newsletter or analyst reports, which are favorable but not false or misleading. See the SEC complaint in Calandra.[8] Calandra is a living person and care must be taken under WP:BLP. This demonstrates either a lack of understanding of pump and dump or a cavalier attitude toward BLP, or both. Please do not add Calandra to the pump and dump article.--Samiharris 13:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He pumped (series of positive articles). He dumped (he sold the stocks undisclosed). The SEC fined him heavily. He's a living person and he's quite frank about his past on his own web page. I disagree. And BLP rules don't say that one must keep negative information that defines notability off of articles in every case on wikipedia except Patrick M. Byrne, a distinction you haven't seemed to grasp yet.

I see the samiharris account has never edited Pump and Dump before, yet quickly have reverted/heavily edited yet another article shortly after my edits. Since you wouldn't have had that on your watchlist automatically, I wonder why that is, it could almost be called "creepy" to use your own tact. Please don't post to my talk page any more, after these 2 edits [9], [10] you have earned the right to have any edits you make to my talk page reverted. This will section will stay up a day and then begone from my talk page. Have a nice life, buh-bye. Piperdown 14:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, all of the dozens of analyst misdeeds of the 1990s were "pump and dump" scams. They were not. Pump and dump is a specific term of art describing a set of criminal conduct, not some kind of adjective that can be carelessly thrown around to describe every type of profiting on stock hype.

You in effect accused Thom Calandra, in the pump and dump article, of a criminal offense that he was never accused of committing. Again, you are demonstrating a willful disregard of that, even after it was explained to you. You need to act with greater care in dealing with living people. You must desist such edits.

Please don't let this be the final word, if you continue to disagree. In such case, I urge you to post on this in the BLP noticeboard if you continue to believe that Calandra should be described as a "pump and dump" criminal, SEC complaint notwithstanding.--Samiharris 15:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence in Alcoholism

I very much agree with the spirit of your change to the Alcoholism intro, but not so much with the content. The article covers both the "common" and medical definitions of alcoholism, but your edit gives undue weight to the common definition. There's been a lot of discussion about how to handle the issue, but no good conclusion, so if you'd like to scan through the discussion and offer your input, it might help us out. --Elplatt 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sock puppet or a meat puppet

Just the facts. It's been an interesting experience in seeing the lies fly. Hopefully such people are not the future of Wikipedia, just a correctable past. Piperdown 04:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I'm not a "meatpuppet" for overstock.com, nor am I am sockpuppet of "wordbomb". Namecalling does not make something true. My user page didn't attack anyone, and my subuser page was a direct and openly so response to a wikistalking page an editor was acccumulating, of whom I then discovered through wikipedia edits had a history of abusive sockpuppeting (as disclosed by arbcom members themselves) -- and google searching revealed a conflict of interest on edits that they were arguing with me about. Conflict of interest page editors had no interest in pursuing that case, for some odd reason they couldn't seem to articulate. If someone can explain how I am a puppet of anykind, I'd like to see if spelled out in facts here, thanks in advance. It's going to be false, because the allegations of piperdown being a puppet on anyone's string are false. Looking at the editing history of the person that "blocked" me, I must say I'm not impressed if this person is representing Wikipedia in any authoritative way.

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'm not a "meatpuppet" for overstock.com, nor am I am sockpuppet of "wordbomb". Namecalling does not make something true. My user page didn't attack anyone, and my subuser page was a direct and openly so response to a wikistalking page an editor was acccumulating, of whom I then discovered through wikipedia edits had a history of abusive sockpuppeting (as disclosed by arbcom members themselves) -- and google searching revealed a conflict of interest on edits that they were arguing with me about. Conflict of interest page editors had no interest in pursuing that case, for some odd reason they couldn't seem to articulate. If someone can explain how I am a puppet of anykind, I'd like to see if spelled out in facts here, thanks in advance. It's going to be false, because the allegations of piperdown being a puppet on anyone's string are false. Looking at the editing history of the person that "blocked" me, I must say I'm not impressed if this person is representing Wikipedia in any authoritative way. |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'm not a "meatpuppet" for overstock.com, nor am I am sockpuppet of "wordbomb". Namecalling does not make something true. My user page didn't attack anyone, and my subuser page was a direct and openly so response to a wikistalking page an editor was acccumulating, of whom I then discovered through wikipedia edits had a history of abusive sockpuppeting (as disclosed by arbcom members themselves) -- and google searching revealed a conflict of interest on edits that they were arguing with me about. Conflict of interest page editors had no interest in pursuing that case, for some odd reason they couldn't seem to articulate. If someone can explain how I am a puppet of anykind, I'd like to see if spelled out in facts here, thanks in advance. It's going to be false, because the allegations of piperdown being a puppet on anyone's string are false. Looking at the editing history of the person that "blocked" me, I must say I'm not impressed if this person is representing Wikipedia in any authoritative way. |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'm not a "meatpuppet" for overstock.com, nor am I am sockpuppet of "wordbomb". Namecalling does not make something true. My user page didn't attack anyone, and my subuser page was a direct and openly so response to a wikistalking page an editor was acccumulating, of whom I then discovered through wikipedia edits had a history of abusive sockpuppeting (as disclosed by arbcom members themselves) -- and google searching revealed a conflict of interest on edits that they were arguing with me about. Conflict of interest page editors had no interest in pursuing that case, for some odd reason they couldn't seem to articulate. If someone can explain how I am a puppet of anykind, I'd like to see if spelled out in facts here, thanks in advance. It's going to be false, because the allegations of piperdown being a puppet on anyone's string are false. Looking at the editing history of the person that "blocked" me, I must say I'm not impressed if this person is representing Wikipedia in any authoritative way. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}