User talk:Shalom Yechiel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Index of archives

[edit] Sock puppet of Pete K

An IP address in the same IP range, 75.35.23.210 (talk · contribs), is again editing the PLANS article now that the two-week ban of sock puppets of Pete K is over. Hgilbert (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And now two more times and also Talk:Anthroposophy one time. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry to bother you with this. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nyannrunning Sockpuppets

I just wanted to thank you for doing all that work regarding the Nyannrunning sockpuppet case. Wildhartlivie and I have been dealing with that whole situation for ages and it's nice to see someone finally take the time to make all the connections. Again, thank you so much! Pinkadelica 01:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I worked hard on that case, so it feels good to hear you thank me. I hope to continue helping the community. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I too want to thank you. It has been, as you can probably tell, a long battle to prove something that we knew was the case. I appreciate your hard work and support on this case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/David Justin (3rd)

I suggest we block the sock to discourage this behavior. The sock has not been used since the case was raised, which strongly implies that there's not a real person who has been unjustly accused. David Justin should continue to edit under his own name. (I think it's unlikely that David Justin has forgotten how to sign in. You'll see here that he stopped editing under his own name on 27 April 2006 and resumed again on 6 March 2007 without a problem. A checkuser on the sock could be compared with the earlier Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/David Justin might yield some interesting results. Spiro Keats (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll send this to User talk:Rlevse. He's the administrator I consult when I can't handle a situation on my own. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Stern

I sincerely appreciate your strong delete recommendation on my page. It seems you're the only one around here who understands what's happening and the unreal sense that I have no control over it. So, thank you. Lazydork (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hdayejr and his socks

Since you closed the sock case, does that mean that all the ranges we found he operates on have been blocked aswell?— Dæ dαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 04:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please reopen the case, seems more IPs are surfacing.— Dæ dαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/Yisrael Rozen

Done, it's at User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/Yisrael Rozen. --Golbez (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: SSP

Peace friend, and thank you for the analysis on the situation. I initially reacted pretty badly as Elonka pointed out, though in my defense if you check the guy's comments on her talk page he was pretty open about hurling all sorts of personal insults at me and I reacted as most people would. It's good to have a third party perspective from someone not directly involved. I hope we can get this whole thing sorted out soon, it seems rather obvious to me that this is the same guy back with a vengeance. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rename on en.wikibooks

I have renamed your account on en.wikibooks to b:en:User:Shalom Yechiel, as per your request. If you have any questions or comments about this, let me know. --Whiteknight (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Re "Keep PJHaseldine gives a valid rationale for having this page in his userspace. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)". How is this valid? It violates several wiki policies. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, it such a case, go ahead and edit the archive, noting it was an ec. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rfa thank ye

Just wanted to thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. You may find my in-depth analysis at User talk:Xenocidic/RFA interesting, I'm seeking community input on a number of issues. there's also some standard thank-spam below for you. xenocidic (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam

[edit] rename on simple@wiki

I renamed you as request on simple.wiki, thanks. --.snoopy.  08:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for your work on creating the article and deeply covering the topic Electricity on Shabbat. Xyz7890 (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Vandalism archive

The most recent archive you created seems to span 2007-8, but there is still a lot of material on the current talk page from 2007, and the stuff from 2008 all seems to be at the top of the page. Something seems to have gone wrong here, though I stopped watching this page in one of my increasingly regular cut-backs in the number of pages I watch. It seems to have become a bit of a shambles - there are many unanswered questions, stuff is out of order, the page needs archiving again... you can sort of understand why I promote page maintainers, no? Richard001 (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/Kfar Hananya

Done. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review on User talk:SlimVirgin

This page is not deleted therefore a deletion review is moot. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False Sockpuppet Accusation

Shalom, I have posted the following on the talk page of User:Rossami as well as the talk page of User:VanTucky. I simply ask that you do what is fair. FYI, my home IP address was blocked shortly after my first post, so I was unable to write again for a few days after that post.

"Rossami, I am writing to request help in mediating a matter involving a false accusation and the tarnishing of my reputation. I am a new user and my first post was here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_23 regarding a Zulupad page. At the end of the deletion review log User:Shalom had the following to say about me:

"Housekeeping note: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Omeomi - There is legitimate suspicion, but no solid proof, that User:Cyber Shepherd may be a sockpuppet of User:Omeomi. Regardless, Cyber Shepherd has no edits outside this DRV and his userpage. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)"

Unless User:Shalom would like to prove or disprove this suggestion that I am a sockpuppet of User:Omeomi by conducting a checkname or performing some other verification test, then I feel that

User:Shalom should rescind his accusation. User User:VanTucky also cast his doubts about my existence as a real person. Can these users either prove their case or redact their statements?

If this is not the correct place to request this kind of help, I apologize--I am new to WikiPedia. However, I am a real person, I do work at Teachers College, Columbia University, and I do intend to (attempt) to create and add positively to WikiPedia. Please help with this matter or least instruct me where a more appropriate forum for this kind of grievance might be. Many thanks." --Cyber Shepherd (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (2nd)

Hello Shalom. Fraberj is already blocked indef. Isn't that appropriate? EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hello, Shalom Yechiel. You have new messages at Steve Crossin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

[edit] RFAR in re CSCWEM

Hi. Per CSCWEM's contribs, I edited your statement at the Request for Arbitration to correct the date of CSCWEM's last edit from 2007 to 2008. FYI; I figured it was a simple enough change that you would not mind, but didn't want to do so without leaving a note - especially since it's Arbcom. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RFB

Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for fixing up that sockpuppetry case. I've added an IP to it. I haven't used Twinkle to file a case before, but it appears to be broken (sockpuppets didn't get listed, notifications didn't get posted). I guess I go back to doing it manually... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)