User talk:Alfadog/Archive

I will welcome myself (Welcome! – OK, thanks!!)) – no need for a WP:WELCOME template – please feel free to extend a non-templated and personal welcome below. --Alfadog (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bark here and I will bark back here. I stay in my yard. Woof.

My e-mail is enabled but I will not be checking it regularly so please let me know here if you send me an e-mail.

Machine + Soul

I had already reverted an improper removal of a tag. It was borderline for a prod vs the db-band, but I will capitulate. I am uncomfortable with doing a 3rd edit on this page to re-instate a db or a prod because I will appear to be 'hounding' that editor. I'm not like that and as such I will leave it alone now... if you feel it should stay there then by all means leave it there as well... I really only found one place on the net and it really is not notable or encyclopedic. --Pmedema (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Gary Numan is definitely notable so db-band is not the tag to use. I am not familiar with notability guidelines for albums so if you are then go ahead and prod it. I was more concerned over the misuse of the db-band tag and the WP:BLP issues in the text. Take care. --Alfadog (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it alone. --Pmedema (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Later. --Alfadog (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Something else

Oh, Sim is a Singapore passenger who died on CI611. Generally I redirect names of passengers on the flights, whether they are mentioned or not - That prevents article creation and links a person who is not individually notable (and therefore does not get his own article) to the article about the disaster itself WhisperToMe (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool. At the risk of being callous, I guess they won't be complaining. Take care. --Alfadog 21:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

You're not going to find all the links online. And I would question myself only online links. I don't know how long you've been editing on Wikipedia but I've been here for some time. I'm not interested in creating a puff piece. Now I understand and support your push to make Wikipedia better however just because you can't find something online doesn't mean it is not true. I am providing real references here. Most will not be online because they are from magazines, books, and conferences. Most of which are not online. I went as far as to even used Harvard citation. And I will be adding more referenced sources. The only problem I have is you seem to be out to get people. I noticed that before the article was even finished you began stating you would delete it if I hadn't provided any sources. You started placing tags almost immediately. This to me seems a little like you are out to get people editing. As I stated I will continue to place sources and citations however you should be a little more considerate and not immediately jump on editors. And just as an extra note, Wikipedia doesn't just rely on web published sources. If you would like to do more research then you can find the actual publications. But just sitting at your computer and googling is not an accurate and fair way to police Wikipedia. If I may make a suggestion look for sources in other places. I've argued with a few people online about sourcing and I used to just google and say hey I can't find it so delete it. I realized I was wrong when I actually tok the time and went to the library and researched and realized I was wrong. Just a note... I thank you however for your desire to make Wikipedia the best it can be. I am in support of your desire but not your approach.--Gnosis (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to take care in making it non promotional because that is not my desire. I'm currently researching memetics with Nestle. We are studying the results of social influences and learned child behavior and trying to determine if this affects what we buy and purchase. I am also working on the Meme Mapping Project. We are going to be working with Dawkins and others and providing information to Wikipedia as well. I'm not interested in promoting anything. I will continue as I always have to provide sources whether they are online or not.

OK, I apologize if I came on too strong. That does not alter anything I said as far as possible misuse of this project and the fact that autobiographies are STRONGLY discouraged. Please be forewarned that unless the citations pass muster as WP:V (and I understand that you intend that they do), I will be nominating the article for deletion. And by WP:V I mean not only online sources. Off-line sources are fine. I am happy to work with you but I really have serious misgivings about your autobiography. Have you put as much effort into anyone else's bio? If not then I reserve the right to question the article as self-serving. --Alfadog (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ps. I also follow WP:AGF. Finally, rather than AfD, I may submit the article to WP:BLPN or WP:COIN. The point is to get community input so we both can see what is appropriate. And for you to understand where I come from (I think that you do.) --Alfadog (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I will give you a bit of time to get the article in better shape before I submit it to the community. Specifically, make sure that the references are specific enough (date, issues, etc.) that I could go to the library and look them up. --Alfadog (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear here... What specifically are you not able to verify? Are you questioning the involvement with Wu Tang, what was done. I mean to be honest a lot of this can be found in public records in New York State. There is also a police report concerning the incident the lawsuit, the settlement. Also the deposition contains an outline of all the work provided for Rza and WuTang while there. The depositions can be found as well and documents everything clearly because it has not only myself it also has Rza (Robert Diggs) In addition there is a listing of accomplishments and achievements in the deposition. It seems you are questioning the validity if that's the case the I have provided sources to be checked. Articles from magazines the court case and links to ELAW where depositions can be researched?

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

   * it is relevant to their notability;
   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
   * the article is not based primarily on such sources.

According to what's above I have done as required. Whether or not you have misgivings about my biography I can verify everything. In addition there are current living people who can also verify. So as I see it, I have provided sources, on and offline and I have posted according to the rules. So please tell me; What are you questioning?--Gnosis (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The ONLY thing in that article that I can verify is that you sued Wu-Tang. That is hardly grounds for an article here; just a mention in their article. --Alfadog (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me give you just one example of many possible. Please give me a specific source that I can use to verify this line: Gibran is a pioneer of guerilla marketing, online marketing and the online street team models. --Alfadog (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of being redundant, WP:V stresses: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --Alfadog (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look at this. This is key! If you cannot adequately source your claims then I am under direct instruction (smile) from the founder of Wikipedia to remove them. --Alfadog (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean... I will reword that and rework the article making sure that there aren't any boastful claims. The articles I sourced including Source Magazine, which I'm not sure if you're familiar with, but the articles I sourced explain that the youth culture and online and street marketing was born from what was going on at WuTang and Loud Records. At the time the labels couldn't find a solution to increase their marketing efforts. I spoke to then Randy president of Loud and Steve Rifkin about expanding online line and taking the street team model and applying it online. Initially they didn't believe it would work but they were proved wrong. Later we worked with them to develop a model that later became SRC.. Steve Rifkin Company. I worked worked with Steve, Rza, Method Man, AKA.com which was the affiliate marketing company of Loud, and several other people who can and will verify what I'm saying. The model then began expanding it using the model we developed at WuTang. That was the main platform for launching because of the high traffic we were getting online at Wutang. My desire was not to claim that I originated the model, it was a collective effort. Do you know that the whole idea of email spam started because of what we were doing at the labels. At the time there was no law against spamming and because we had a mailing list at WuTang of at minimum 1,250,000 names we were told by Rza to began selling that mailing list to the other labels to do marketing. We thought this was a bad idea at first. This email list was very coveted. Initially it wasn't a problem but then the mailing list was sold outside the music industry to other companies by individuals within the marketing department who wanted to make a quick buck. When that happened next was crazy, the list was sold over and over and people began complaining here in NY. This is one major reason SPAM became a big problem. Spam in regards to email that is. It was a great time then for creative tech heads because it was an "anything goes" period. Trust me... You me I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. I take care to tone down any boastful comments in the article. But I think the approach should be from the standpoint of how things evolved during that time and my particular involvement which was definitely critical because I was in the center of all this. I'm really trying to make this a NPOV article so please bear with me. Thanks You...--Gnosis (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, do what you can with it but let me just mention that if you want to write about the history of marketing or some such, you do that in the marketing article. Not in an article about yourself unless strong sources exist to support that and, even then, you should let others do it and restrict your comments to the talk page. Get the article in the best shape you can and then we will submit to the larger community. Best of luck. --Alfadog (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought we discussed this and you were going to let me finish editing and then pass to BLP or COIN? I've been adding magazine articles with the correct citations and have not finished. Why have you nominated for deletion?--Gnosis (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. After reflecting, I felt that 1) the WP:COI is a given and you have already been informed of that so no point in going to WP:COIN and 2) questions of notability are decided via the WP:AfD process and not on the WP:BLPN. Since it was my clearly stated position that the article is questionable and that I was going to submit it to the community then the proper venue is the AfD process. I have stated my reasoning there and I encourage you to make your case there. I have no bone to pick with you and wish you luck but this is something that the community should decide. Happy Holidays. --Alfadog (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you as well. Understand, I don't think you have a bone to pick with me so please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I am willing to let the article be removed, however if that is the case... Shouldn't every other notable Wikipedian article that falls within what we are talking about be deleted. That would cause quite a ripple however it is only fair. I do understand that sources need to be cited, although it appears that online are the only ones that are considered. How is this upholding the standards of Wikipedia? Are you saying that my sources should be found online only or in addition to offline. Are online citations required for entry into Wikipedia as a primary source with magazines and news articles second? But in reality I understand what you are saying. I will resubmit the article once there are more searchable verifiable articles online. Thanks...--Gnosis (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is NOT that your sources are not available online. The problem is that, other than the Wu-Tang thing, the sources seem somewhat trivial as they are not mainstream media. This is compounded by the fact that you do not tell us what is sourced by what. I see a few industry-type sources but I have no idea what you are sourcing from them. Lectures given are not notable. The root of the problem is that I see nothing that would warrant your inclusion in this encyclopedia and it is the norm here that one does not write about themselves. Other articles are other articles and you are welcome to AfD any article in this project. I, for one, will see that at more inappropriate use of this project but I certainly won't and can't stop you. If I may be so bold as to give you a more constructive suggestion? Work on some other biographies and hang out at WP:BLPN and get a better feel for what the issues are before tackling your own again. Meanwhile place {{db-author}} as the top of the article and it will be deleted and I will close the AfD. --Alfadog (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Alphadog, I have to say first of all I see and understand exactly what you are saying. I will definitely review WP:BLPN. I also don't think you are trying to be an ass that's why I respect what you are saying. I have worked on various articles in the past but Biographies has not been the bulk of my edits. I was wrong for pointing out other articles that are wrong in justification for my being entered into Wikipedia. A better approach that I will be taking now is to make sure that the information I present is properly sourced fully. In addition if there are other articles that don't fall within that guideline then they should also be removed. That is a separate issue and has nothing to do with my entry as it relates to the guidelines here. Keeping in mind that all information should not be questionable and if some of it is, it shouldn't make up the bulk of the biography. The biography should contain mostly if not all verifiable information. If I am to be included then I need to have verifiable information. I am known within the music, movie and entertainment industry. I am also known under a different name, a pseudonym I write under. Although this is true, it needs to be verified from exact sources. I will make sure I keep that in mind as I go forward and I thank you for taking the time to discuss this in a respectable manner. Much Appreciation...--72.229.4.238 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. There is no need to worry if the article gets deleted as you are allowed to recreate it provided that you recreate it correctly. If someone gives you grief about recreating it, feel free to let me know and I will take a look at what you have. But it would be better if you created it in your personal user space first. Also don't forget to copy the present article source to your personal computer before it gets deleted. Don't copy it to your user space as that is discouraged. Create a new article in your user space. The two main suggestions that I have (since I have already suggested that you not write it at all as per WP:COI, and WP:AUTO - leave it for another to write) are 1) limit it to those things about you that are available in reliable sources; i.e. less (or no) general discussion that is more suited to articles on internet marketing or web design or whatever and, 2) use the <ref></ref> tags in the body of the article so that we can verify what sources what. Best of luck in the New Year. --Alfadog (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good luck and prosperity to you as well in the New Year!!Gnosis (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostfacebandit (talk • contribs) 21:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Bobo

Thanks for the note. Someone had redirected to the real article previously, so I thought there would be some relevance. So I went back to the redirect and protected it so the hoaxter couldn't use it for his/her own nefarious purposes. Then I started looking for some connection, significance or relevance between the "Bobo" title and the real article. So far, no good. So, I'll likely get rid of the thing entirely. Thanks again. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

PS Found a connection to DJ Bobo and redirected there. This way it's effectively salted for now. Don't see the connection between the two hoaxters. Has someone asked that the new one be blocked? Dlohcierekim 22:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BangUser. The article was created by the sockmaster and hoaxes are what he does. Please let's not use it for anything - just delete and WP:DFTT. Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

New page patrolling

What it means is I went here, clicked on a yellow highlighted link, scrolled down, and clicked on another link that said "mark page as patrolled". Basically, what that means is I checked to make sure that the page didn't fit the criteria for speedy or proposed deletion. --Kannie | talk 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I never looked at that as I have been busy enough with WP:RCP. Thanks for adding to my wikistore of wikiknowledge! --Alfadog (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I just marked one - cool! --Alfadog (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ooops

Sorry about that. Thanks for fixing it! RogueNinja_talk 19:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You are welcome. --Alfadog (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Evan Nicholas (Niclas y Glais)

Are you saying you do not accept the biography of this man, written by a History Professor at the University of Wales, as sufficient evidence of notability ? If you do not accept that as evidence, could you indicate what would be acceptable ? --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

IDK. I am just not sure if a bio published for a local historical society meets our definition of reliable or if that asserts sufficient notability. I would think that if the fellow is truly notable then there would also be references to him in more mainstream publication, don't you think? That was my real point. A quick Google found that BBC piece. There are likely lots more. You can remove the tag if you like but I would still like to see other, more mainstream, sources. Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is another good one. --Alfadog (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the advice and help. I've learned a lot from this contribution. --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome. --Alfadog (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A response

I am not a number, I am a free man.

Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I looked up your quote after I responded to it. That was my most favorite show back in the day but, on more recent viewing, I found the memory more charming than the reality so I decided to leave it as memory. --Alfadog (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in keeping with the theme:

Whether you be called by a number or a name, freedom is a delusion; there are no free men.

--Alfadog (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually wasn't alive when it first aired, but thanks to Netflix I was able to watch all the episodes from first to last in order. I actually loved it. It started petering out a bit towards the end, and that final episode was a real brain buster, but I really enjoyed McGoohan and specific elements of it. I like that they clearly spent some time and money on costuming and creating the atmosphere.

Be seeing you.

-- Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I might give it another shot. Trouble is I saw so many of these classics like Twilight Zone, Star Trek, The Prisoner, The Avengers, etc. when they were first aired and my memories are undiminished by any shortcomings or dated bits that I might notice now. So I end up with a bit of a let-down. Forbidden Planet is still a great flick. Monsters from the id! --Alfadog (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hullo. Yes, this is my account (Justanother). I started this account some time ago when I closed Justanother (just put it to sleep actually) as I thought I might like to continue to contribute (as in "contribute") to the project without the onus of being "a Scientologist" (an onus on the internet if not in real life) and without old baggage. I really did not mean to edit Scientology articles at all from this account but I made a couple edits not realizing I had logged in. I occasionally make an edit to the Scientology articles from my IP (i.e. not logged in) but they are all legit edits - I just am not interested in having an account to edit Scientology articles right now. Anywho, I made a couple of edits not realizing I was logged in - again all legit edits, nothing wrong there. Oh, and I made four (4) minor RCP (recent change patrol) edits the first day of my Justanother one-week block. Innocuous edits that were contributory. I don't recall why I did that under block - my bad, sorry. Then I did not edit again for two weeks. So other than witch-hunting the Scientologist, there is no real reason to block this account. Can you show me one? Best wishes.

Decline reason:

This account has been used in the past to edit while some of your other accounts were blocked. Additionally, there is serious discussion going on about whether your abuse of multiple accounts violates arbcom sanctions. See [1] for more information. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:38, 25 March 2008 (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.

Jayron

There is no evidence that I "abused" multiple accounts; simply evidence that I "used" multiple accounts, in a mostly sequential fashion, i.e. using one account because I stopped using another. Also, I am under NO sanction by virtue of that or any arbcom. There is little reason, if any, to block this account other than that I made a few minor edits three weeks ago when I should not have. So is this my punishment for that? --Alfadog (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Justanother/Alfadog, I don't think it helps you right now to claim there's no evidence you abused multiple accounts. When Mangojuice denied an unblock request on your last block, he said you appeared to have edit warred on an IP address to skirt the arbitration probation on Scientology articles.[2] Now we also have checkuser confirmation that you evaded that block on this account (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother). Really, since you posted five separate unblock requests for that block, it strains credibility to the breaking point to suppose that you then logged in accidentally and used an undisclosed alternate account during the block. All I'm asking is that you participate productively under your main account, and only that account. None of us are perfect; please, just accept this in the interests of the project so that we can move forward. Durova^Charge! 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I really do not recall why I made four (4) innocuous edits. I already apologized for that. My problem with you Durova, and JH, is that you ascribe all these nefarious motives when the diffs do not support that. It is obvious that this Alfadog account has not been improperly used (except for that minor and harmless case) yet you still seem to support some punitive action. You guys are like "That guy over there is bad - arrest him!" when he has done little wrong. I could really care less about this account as my obvious purpose was to contribute without all this crap and baggage and I screwed that up by forgetting I was logged in but I hate when people get over with ill intentions or simple carelessness that is even perhaps worse than ill intentions. Carelessness about the truth, carelessness about justice, about what is right. That is what bothers me. Regarding your concern about Cirt. I have already addressed your concern about what I had on my page - where is my acknowledgment for that? I am not interested in editing Scn articles from any account though I reserve the right to make an occasional correction from my IP if I care to. There is nothing wrong with that and edits stand or fall on their own merits. --Alfadog (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Look: five unblock requests for a single block is an extraordinary demand upon volunteer time. Then, when all five had been denied--and you were fortunate enough not to have had the block extended in the process--you edit from another account anyway. If that was really an accident then you would have disclosed it yourself, but you wait for someone else to file a checkuser. Then even when the result confirms that you've violated policy, you deny wrongdoing. It isn't punitive to ask for a restriction at this point: the rest of us have better things to do. You're right, I haven't acknowledged your reply about Cirt because it was condescending and uncivil: I've never given you permission to address me by pet names and it hardly amounts to much that you claim to have been calling a nonprofit project a crack whore instead of a particular individual (whom you elsewhere directly accused of abusing drugs). Really, I had very little opinion about your religion until I encountered you and I hope this isn't the kind of behavior they teach and endorse, because you are an exceedingly poor ambassador for it. Durova^Charge! 23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh please, Durova, you have called me a lot worse than "dear" - or have you forgotten your attack on me at the CofS arb? As far as WikiNews being for "sale" (though all it "costs" is time), well, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I made my point then and am not about repeating it. So I am a bit of a prick when I am attacked and harassed as an editor and when so-called "productive editors" that know nothing about Scientology can make a career of cherry-picking sources and skewing articles to forward their POV. But I have made that point already too. And I am not fighting that fight anymore. This account was something I began months back when I thought I might want to continue contributing without involving myself in Scientology battles. I am not sure how much of that I want to do and, in any event, I can do whatever little editing I care to without logging in - no biggie. As I told JH, I stand behind every single mainspace edit I ever made - and there are thousands of them. They were good edits and they were not good because I was trying to maintain a low profile and not get CAUGHT pushing my POV (like one I won't name) - they were good because I do not push POV. Maybe someone somewhere can appreciate that distinction. See ya round. --Alfadog (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If I had done anything untoward, surely the arbitration committee would have noticed. I have no opinion about the subjects that a fellow editor chooses to work on: if that person's work passes WP:GAC and WP:DYK and WP:FAC then I thank them with a triple crown. You could have earned one too, and I'm disappointed by the direction you've taken. Durova^Charge! 03:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

An experiment

Let's see what that direction was, shall we? Here is an exercise for you, Durova. Set aside all your preconceived notions about me and take a look at my side. I think that my actions will bear out my description.

1. I decided that I could not devote the amount of time to the project that would be appropriate to offset the amount of noise I create simply by virtue of being the only Scientologist that edits here and standing against the army of know-nothings and POV-pushers. Not to say all Wikipedians or all critics of Scientology are such, just saying there are an army of such. I said here that I did not want to be a troll or the pet Scientologist and I bowed out.

   How are we doing so far? Do I have it right? See anything there deserving of censure?

2. While I certainly cannot devote an adequate, in my eyes, amount of time here to stand up and be counted I still am on the internet, still am interested in Scientology and Wikipedia and I make an occasional edit without logging in. Those edits can stand or fall on their merits.

   How are we doing so far? Do I have it right? See anything there deserving of censure?

3. While handling a blatant WP:BLP issue, Cirt comes along, edit-wars to keep the BLP vio in then spams my page with fake warnings. I get a bit angry and a newbie admin blocks me as his first admin action. Mangojuice reviews and says he would have blocked the both of us but too late now.

   How are we doing so far? You may not agree here but I think the diffs bear me out? And I think if you gave me a fair shake and really went through that incident (instead of cherry-picking part of an edit summary to make me look bad), you might agree.

4. Meanwhile I have another account I started almost six months ago to edit without the Scientology baggage. I have not been using it much but log in now and then so that I can keep an eye on my home pages for vandalism as IP cannot have a watchlist. My creation of such an account is entirely permissible under WP:SOCK Legitimate uses of alternative accounts:

   Users with a recognized expertise in one field might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects.

   and the checkuser was inappropriate:

   I'll be identified by checkuser or accused of being a sock puppet later: Checkuser is used for suspected breaches of policy. If you don't use the old account or engage in problematic conduct, there is little reason a request would be made, and a request without good reason is likely to be declined for lack of cause.

   Well it should have been declined as there was no breach of policy but it was not declined. There is certainly no reason to block this account.

   How are we doing so far? So what we are left with is that I made four (4) innocuous maintenance edits unthinkingly on the first day of my block. And that was three weeks ago. So what are we trying to accomplish here? Nothing worth accomplishing, I will say that. And I think if you, or any intelligent person, were to give this a fair look then they would agree. Obviously Cirt is happy to "bring me down" and pounced on my "sock" but again, nothing improper was done other than that error three weeks ago that Cirt knew nothing about and that was not the basis of his attack.

So do me the courtesy please of looking at things with a fresh mind and seeing if I did much of anything deserving of this latest punishment. If you are not willing to extend me that courtesy then what are you doing over here talking to me? --Alfadog (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the resolution on the AN thread is reasonable. Although you and I are like oil and water, please bear in mind that I set aside personal feelings and proposed a lesser remedy when sitebanning was on the table, and that lesser remedy I proposed was somewhat softer than what was actually adopted. I would really like to see the positive aspects of Scientology become featured articles, and I hope you'll be the editor to do it. Durova^Charge! 05:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well just remember that oil and water complement each other nicely in salad dressing. And yes, I acknowledge your point. Thank you for making the clarification on AN. As I already said, I do little editing these days and any "stalkish" behavior has not been on my part. As far as good articles on Scientology, perhaps someday when my personal situation permits. It would help if your "boy" were not busily deleting the few good articles that did exist (ARC and KRC as prime examples). You might be surprised to know how busy Cirt is in that activity. Ta ta. --Alfadog (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Request

This is more silliness. There is no evidence of any real wrongdoing with this account, just a few very minor and constructive edits mistakenly made on RCP. All we are doing here with this "community ban" talk is wasting time with a few editors/admins/ex-admins that have a bone to pick with me and are abusing this opportunity. Any admin (even you, Blueboy) is invited to unblock this account for the sole purpose of addressing the AN issue and any subsequent arb request. Thanks. --Alfadog (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)