User talk:DollyD

Welcome!

Hello, DollyD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! – please continue to value-add to wikipedia. --Bhadani 12:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Jimraymond.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jimraymond.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do not Censor Afd debate comments from users you have banned yourself.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that is relevant to the article. You have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please Do not Censor Afd debate comments from users you have banned yourself. If the comments are inappropriate, please allow another user to remove them. DollyD (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets of banned users don't count as legitimate editors and are to be ignored. If you haven't noticed, all of User:Andrew Lau II's posts on AFD has been trolling and not a single one of them has any basis in policy. Also note that his use of my real name as his username is a direct jab at me. By the way, I find it quite discourteous when editors use drop-in template warnings on an administrator's talk pages considering we're meant to know Wikipedia policy better than anyone else. -- Netsnipe ► 08:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, if that account name was a direct personal attack on you. However, I don't feel the comments at the AFD on Evan Laszlo attacked you in any way, and feel that their removal was unnecessary. Tagging the comments as being by a suspected sockpuppet would have been much more appropriate. But I'm unimpressed by your elitist attempt to pull rank here. You're an admin, I'm a humble editor. So what? DollyD (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Laszlo AfD

Please note that the "SPA" in question is an IP and therefore may be used by multiple people (maybe a tag to show that would be appropriate) the edits in 2004 were very likely not from the same person. I don't mean any disrespect to you or to the person at the end of the IP but, the tag is factually accurate based on the records I can access. Unless you have further information please don't remove it again. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. You are simply adding SPA tags to every user who disagrees with you in the AfD in an attempt to discount their recommendation to keep the article. DollyD (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DollyD. You have new messages at Jasynnash2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CSD nomination

I notice that you nominated Association of Nene River Clubs for speedy deletion. When nominating for deletion, it is usually considered courteous to notify the article creator that you have done so, in order that he/she can contest the deletion if desired. Mayalld (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANRC link

Hi DollyD. The link is [1].Ning-ning (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for posting incorrect linkage. I've amended it. I've posted it on your talk page because this link does not seem to have been read by either the creator of the article nor those who have so vigourously defended it. Don't feel like handing anything to them on a plate ;) Ning-ning (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ning-ning, Thanks for the link. I agree with your proposal for a possible "Cruising on the River Nene" article that could include information about other clubs in the area. This seems like a far better outcome than a straight-out deletion. DollyD (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

!!! I pressed something on my keyboard and I nearly moved your talk page somewhere. Hope I haven't damaged anything. It is a bit of a problematic case, as all the info about the ANRC is web-derived- but the other clubs seem to have been around much longer and I suppose in total they'll add up to notability. Ning ning (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think any problems happened with this talk page. I think the combined article is a good solution, and as you have noted, there are precedents for similar cases. The clubs may not necessarily warrant their own articles but I would prefer the information available somewhere on Wikipedia, because in total I think notability could almost certainly be established. DollyD (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HenFeatures/ShizuokaSensei Stalker

DollyD a sockpuppet!? Shame on you. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.104.37.192 (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's my old HenFeatures/ShizuokaSensei/etc/etc Stalker pal! Long time no hear! Good to see that you're still watching my page and fighting Patrick Alexander. :-) DollyD (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

This sockpuppet allegation is totally false. I was made aware of it earlier and posted my objection [2]. I have been a user on Wikipedia for about three years and never been blocked before. I'm not sure what "evidence" this is based on. It appears that I am in a similar IP range to a blocked user. I had noticed recently that I couldn't edit as an unregistered user. But that is no justification to have my account banned. DollyD (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per checkusers comments here an ordinary admin isn't going to unblock you. I suggest you email Alison or the arbcom if you want to get anything done. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:01, 19 September 2008 (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.

Okay, but who is the "arbcom"? DollyD (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC) {{helpme}}[reply]

See WP:ARB Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did email Alison, but she seems to have ignored it. Someone seems to have put some personal details here. How can I have these removed ASAP? Please help, this is the only page I can edit! :-( DollyD (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom's email is near the top of WP:ARB, you could try emailing them. To get personal info removed you'd need to contact someone at WP:Oversight. Good luck, Matt (Talk) 23:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

I have emailed Arbcom, perhaps they will do something. eek!!! Thanks MattT DollyD (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My emails appear to keep being ignored. HOW CAN I GET THIS INFORMATION REMOVED?? I cannot wait to be unblocked, if indeed I ever am. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE REMOVE MY PERSONAL DETAILS as I would like them to remain private. THANK YOU. DollyD (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably won't be responded to instantly. You can request removal of personal info by following the process at Wikipedia:Oversight. Matt (Talk) 02:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

Sit tight for a while, please. I'm offline at the moment but will get to it later today ... - Alison ^❤ 02:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC) (by phone)[reply]

Thankyou Alison. Please wipe all mentions of my RL identity as soon as you can. I can't remove any of it because I'm range blocked. Please review my block too, but get my name off first, it SHOULD NOT be on here without my consent. DollyD (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point it out - I've taken a quick look and can't find anything? Your userpage is fine - Alison ^❤ 02:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's in edit summaries and on a few pages. DollyD (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You put your own RL name in edit summaries and on some pages? Where? Show me diffs and I'll deal with them immediately - Alison ^❤ 02:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could I put my own RL name anywhere? You rangeblocked me! It's in LOCATIONREMOVED and still totally visible on some other pages. Please fix it ASAP, Alison, if you can. DollyD (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just blur or scamble the name and location please. There's enough to totally identify me and I'm totally not cool with this. DollyD (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email me the info, 'coz I'm not finding it, and if I can't, others likely won't either. As for blocking, that's entirely unrelated to privacy-related issues - Alison ^❤ 03:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you like I'll email it. I hope I get a reply, as my two emails dating back to August did not receive any reply. I understand you're very busy Alison, but I've just been blocked in the past day or so because of my IP range and Spartaz said only you and Arbcom can unblock? Why?? DollyD (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just oversighted some stuff, as requested - both from your userpage (which I"m about to protect) and from the sock-puppet page. There's a whole lot more than your IP range going on here - check your email - Alison ^❤ 07:06, 21 September 2008 (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).

DollyD (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 sock of User Wrath of Groth. I've been on Wikipedia for about 3 years and that user is just recent. Obviously, it's physically impossible without a time machine. I heard once from Alison but she never replied back and Arbcom has totally ignored me. Please help, thanks. DollyD (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Agree with above from previous admin review - deferring to Alison and/or Arbcom on this one. — Cirt (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2008 (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.

Hi there. I'm still very much actively looking into this issue - Alison ^❤ 10:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Alison, but I wish you would actually contact me. I've told you what I did, and if you feel it is necessary, put it on my user page. I'll take responisbility for my actions, sure. But I'm not Wrath of Groth. DollyD (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm-kay. I'm still checking some stuff here but will pmail you tomorrow. - Alison ^❤ 11:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you'd contacted me in the first place. Just putting me in a long list on your talk page with no contact was a bit... weird. I understand you have access to logs and think I'm in the same range as a vandal, but how wide do you cast your net? Talk to me please, treat me like a person, don't just crush and ban me for an arbiturary reason. I have my suspicions as to who Wrath is too. Thanks :-) DollyD (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Ok, can you please email me and tell me what exactly is really going on here. If you suspect you know who this person is, can you share that information with me, in confidence? I'm bound by the privacy policy on discussing such matters. Can you also maybe email me from a non-throwaway (Gmail) account? - Alison ^❤ 11:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know, but can't prove as such. Suspicions as just that, and I don't know the full extent of what Wrath of Groth did, since I can only find one edit. So I don't wanna drop anyone in a situation where they might not be guilty, you know? If you email me the Wrath details in confidence, I might. Um, what non-throwaway email do you need? I don't have a work email address or anything. DollyD (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Hi there. Per our email discussion and evidence provided, I am unblocking your account as I no longer believe you to be a sock of User:Wroth of Groth. However, you have been involved in minor socking in the past. This is well over now and you have undertaken not to do that stuff again, and I accept that. Furthermore, there have been issues with your account that has meant you had to request Oversight on certain things. I'm suspicious that someone is also messing you about.

Either way, I'm unblocking your account now. Best of luck, and welcome back! If there's anything you need (admin or oversight), just let me know ;) - Alison ^❤ 19:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

youre cool

youre cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.219.5 (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Thanks Sweety for the support, you are really nice. btw i too like chocolate.

The Nice Hollaback Girl (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		thanks for the support The Nice Hollaback Girl (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock, 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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I request IP block exemption to bypass this block because I have an account in good standing DollyD (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Denied; you are now individually blocked. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:33, 1 December 2008 (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.

Hi there, what's your block message / the IP that is blocked, because it's not showing up as an autoblock. The Helpful One 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the quick response. It says "You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.

You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them. Editing from 203.194.0.0/19 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Deskana for the following reason(s):

 CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address (or network) has been used abusively.

This address (or network) has been blocked temporarily or permanently to prevent further abuse.

In extreme cases, an entire network may be blocked to prevent an abusive user from continually changing their IP address in order to evade blocks or abusing multiple accounts. If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please follow these instructions.

Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed.

Users: If you already have an account in good standing, you may request IP block exemption to bypass this block. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.

" DollyD (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The range block will no longer affect you. You are now blocked indefinitely. --Deskana (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana

Hi Deskana,

I'm rather shocked to see that you have indefinitely blocked my account on Wikipedia, simply because I requested IP block exemption. I have had an account in pretty good standing for the last 3 years.

With respect, I feel that you've acted rather rashly here, and I'd like to discuss the block. I would much rather deal directly with you than make an appeal to the Arbcom, but I am fully prepared to do so if necessary.

Thanks. DollyD (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the previous message to Deskana via e-mail, and am yet to receive a reply. DollyD (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sop happen to be discussing it with some other checkusers right now. --Deskana (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply, but I feel uneasy having my fate discussed in some external place (presumably IRC) DollyD (talk) 09:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you don't want us to discuss it, that's something you'll have to live with. --Deskana (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, but at this point Deskana, myself, and Alison have all endorsed the block after lengthy discussion and review of current and past checkuser evidence. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I feel that it is grossly unfair that I was given no opportunity to take part in any discussion about my block. Secondly, I feel that it is wrong that a matter concerning the policing of Wikipedia has been entirely conducted on an external chat channel. The complete lack of transparency and accountability is very worrying.

I shall be taking the matter further. DollyD (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Bear in mind that any appeal you make to the Arbitration Committee will be viewable by me, so attempting to mislead us won't go down well. --Deskana (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Alison really say she endorsed my block? DollyD (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to accuse me and Luna Santin of lying? How do you think that would work out in an appeal? --Deskana (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing you or Luna Santin of lying. I am merely asking for confirmation that Alison endorsed my block. Please calm down. DollyD (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Alison endorsed the block. Your accusation remains, and will be taken into consideration during an appeal. --Deskana (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again I state, I never accused you or Luna Santin of lying. I thank you for your confirmation. DollyD (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison asked me to remind you that checkusers talk off-wiki frequently to protect people's privacy, such as yours. If you wish to waive that privacy and have us list evidence on-wiki, do tell us and we will consider doing so. --Deskana (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison is aware of my real life name and some details about me. Are you suggesting that this is the information that would be listed on Wikipedia? DollyD (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. That would violate the privacy policy, unless you agreed to it, and you haven't. Alison never told us any details that you may have disclosed to her. What we're saying is, you can't complain about us talking in private unless you want your information made public. The two are mutually exclusive. And I'm just about done wasting my time here now. If you want to e-mail the Arbitration Committee, do it. If you don't, don't. Expect no further response from me here. --Deskana (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you or Luna Santin please tell me exactly what privacy sensitive "evidence" would be listed on Wikipedia? And I would also appreciate if you could be a little more civil and thoughtful in your responses. Thank you. DollyD (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're looking at non-private evidence, I'd be curious to see what satisfactory explanation you can provide for so quickly being aware of my post at User talk:What's The Buzzoff?, or for returning from a nearly two-week hiatus so quickly after Deskana set a rangeblock, or for the fact you've sometimes stood up for sockpuppet accounts (including some socks of Wroth, or the Hollaback accounts I'd checkusered only recently before you turned up on my talk page), or for the large number of times activity on your account has come shortly before or after -- frequently even on the same IP as -- disruption from obvious sockpuppet accounts. The stack of coincidences is too tall to seem plausible. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Luna Santin's Questions.

Hi Luna. I will try to answer your questions. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this issue.

First - I often check the "What Links here" to my userpage after an incident a while back with a user called Hen Features. It looks like it was about 3 days later that I noticed about the What's the Buzzoff page. The same thing happened before on another talk page (Alison) , and I added my objection to being called a sock.

Second - I wasn't actually gone on a two week hiatus. I always try to log out of my account because the net computer is a shared in our house (important).

Sometimes I edit as an IP when that function is working and I forget to log in, or I just look at pages to read. But I noticed the rangeblock and asked for an exemption.

Third - I'm not Wrath of Groth or the Hollaback Girl. I did support some accounts who were accused of being those users. I have been accused of being both Wrath and Hollaback a few times and had been directly named in those instances as an additional sockpuppet. I was also rather concerned at how quickly the users were being silenced, with talk pages protected, like Doc Nebula.

Please let me know if there is anything I can clarify or any further questions. DollyD (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Doc Nebula, could you explain why they were editing from your dynamic IP address on two occasions? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Nebula was editing from my IP address on two occasions? Are you sure? What about other times they edited? I can't explain how that could happen. DollyD (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I feel Luna Santin has clearly made a mistake in saying that Doc Nebula has ever edited from my IP address. If I remember rightly, Doc Nebula was also suspiciously blocked with his talk page protected immediately after he requested a recall of Luna Santin's admin powers. DollyD (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]