User talk:N6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Hello! 2 Request for Mediation 3 Thank you 4 Sockpuppet 5 UoP RfM 6 Cant get the point across? 7 UoP RfA

[edit] Hello!

Hello there, N6!

Are you a Rudd? I'm a Lloydie. DavidCBryant 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Scurve, class of 2004. I picked into Blacker and joined Ricketts late in my frosh year. N6 02:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/University of Phoenix. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for spotting and removing vandalism from my talk page. Cascadia 02:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning re: vacuouspoet. David D. (Talk) 06:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet

Some nutjob sockpuppet continues to lump us together. Do I know you? LOL. Orangemarlin 13:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We've both been editing on Evolution and its Talk page. I don't know of any other connection. N6 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we remove these idiotic tags? Or does it require some administrator? And does any loser have a right to just push their agenda? Makes me want to just ignore this garbage. Orangemarlin 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The person who filed the Sockpupet complaint did not provide any good evidence. You should be able to remove the notices per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry/Notes_for_the_suspect. Cascadia 19:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The standard isn't "good evidence"; it's "evidence". We are not within our rights to remove the tags. I've responded to my case by saying that it's clearly frivolous, and this should do equally well as a response for you. I have no problem waiting this out. N6 19:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag because it showed no evidence whatsoever, so it didn't even meet the standard of "evidence." I'm pretty upset since this user, who is probably a Sockpuppet itself, can make spurious claims based on nothing. Orangemarlin 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I don't see anything of your comments on this case. You might be thinking of the previous accusation. Orangemarlin 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence was provided in the form of pointing to our participation on Talk:Evolution and alleging suspicious similarities. The policy allowing you to remove the template is for when no evidence whatsoever--not even any text claiming to be evidence--is provided.

I did not comment on the N6 case because I'm not required or expected to. I did comment on the Orangemarlin case (linked from the template on my userpage).

--N6 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comments. PurpleSunfish reverted my removal, but a administrator came and re-reverted it. It's now gone. I'm sure he'll get to yours soon. Please add comments here if you don't mind Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VacuousPoet. We had to do this to get the sockpuppet case validated. This is complicated. Orangemarlin 02:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UoP RfM

Thanks for your comments. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here, and I'm beginning to wonder why on earth I ever allowed myself to become embroiled in a debate over the minutiae of WP policy in such an obvious case. N6 21:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. A forum with 12 people isn't really almost never a good place to link to, regardless of it's content. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cant get the point across?

I had the same experience. When I looked at his page, I realize why we had this situation.--Filll 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UoP RfA

This is to serve as notice that I am filing for Arbitration. --Rdenke 07:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)