User talk:Tezza1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Suspected sock puppeteer Dbromage

As discussed on the administrators noticeboard, I've just cut and pasted here what I consider relevant links. Please look at the evidence. This is not a complete listing, nor are they in any particular order.

Some examples of entries within a matter of minutes of each other

Some examples of vote rigging in AFD

[edit] Reference format

Hi

Would you please format the references in the railpage article? I haven't got the time to at present and it would make things clearer if assertions were supported by well formatted references.

The correct format for citation is:

<ref name="???">{{cite web | last =  | first =  | authorlink =  | coauthors =  | year = 
 | url =  | title = 
 | format =  | work =  | publisher =  | accessdate = }}</ref>
then to call on the same note later use in text:
<ref name="???"/>

Required parameters

  • url: URL of online item.
  • title: Title of online item.
  • date: Date when item was accessed. Best if ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format.

Optional parameters

  • author: Author
  • publishyear: Date published.
  • format: Format, i.e. PDF. HTTP implied if not specified.
  • work: If this item is part of a larger work, name of that work.
  • publisher: Publisher, if any.

Thank you --Golden Wattle talk 09:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well done Tezza

Keep sticking it to the fundies! Anti Fundie 02:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

You set the page up correctly, you just used the wrong template on the article and put it in the article space instead of on the talkpage. No big deal... you can see my edit diffs if you are curious how it should have been set up.--Isotope23 17:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Railpage Australia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Railpage Australia meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railpage Australia. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. -- DFC Free Oz 02:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Railpage

The action was intended to protect the article, not endorse any particular revision. My decision was bound to irritate at least one party, remember, admins only ever protect m:The Wrong Version. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"I have refrained from making major edits" What a crock! Reverting somebody else's edits because you don't like them IS a major edit! You asked for reliable sources and then reverted them when they were added. 209.139.208.139 15:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your days here are ended, I've moved for you to be blocked from editing Railpage. Btw see my comments on WP:COI58.105.240.251 09:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh :( Tezza1 12:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community enforceable mediation

I have escalated Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1 to Community enforceable mediation. If you wish to participate in mediation, please sign the mediation request on that page. The Null Device 02:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it still on??Tezza1 11:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1

Hello, Tezza1. The RFC/USER discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1 has been closed.

The outcome was: Proceeded to mediation

-- The Null Device 01:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll respond to this latter in detail, but I find it amusing that this individual has jumped in at a very late stage in this recent incident, just after I submitted the article for peer review and flooded the article with edits, while the other supporters of the current article stand back and nod like donkeys. I suspect there has been an blocking strategy which was organized in another discussion forum. This user has never attempted to discuss the matter on my talk page according to guidelines.[1]

   1 Avoidance
   2 First step: Talk to the other parties involved
   3 Second step: Disengage for a while
   4 Further dispute resolution
       4.1 Informal mediation
       4.2 Discuss with third parties

Tezza1 13:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ban warning

Tezza1, I don't think you intended to violate site standards at the last two posts to my page, but your action was in serious violation of policy. Attempts to identify another editor's real world identity are only allowable if that editor has voluntarily disclosed the information here at Wikipedia himself or herself. It makes no difference how well this information may be known elsewhere on the Internet; the normal response to what you did is immediate sitebanning.

I've reverted your edits and submitted a request to have those posts permanently removed from the history files. Please don't ever do that again, because if you do I'll have to place an indefinite block on your account. DurovaCharge! 18:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated before, I'm a novice user here and I'm pretty disgusted about the whole thing. I don't know all the rules and procedures. I believe that individuals who have a definite COI should disclose it first or refrain from editing and discussion where they could face accusations of COI. If policy allows individuals to continue and behave like I have tried to demonstrate and does not permit reporting, then I'm very surprised and apologize. You also should delete my request form the COI noticeboardTezza1 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


No, I haven't been banned, [2], but then again, maybe I have? as these guys usually do these the things without informing you in complete disregard to Wikipedia guidelines.Tezza1 13:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I chuckled when i read that on aus.rail. Someone there - and no, I *don't* think it's you - seems to have taken quite a shine to you, and has regular updates on what you're up to here. No idea who it is, though. And when someone is banned from wikipedia, there's no doing it in "complete disregard to Wikipedia guidelines". Johnmc 14:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Go have a cry Tezza. You exiled yourself so why don't you stay exiled? 58.216.233.166 23:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Have I?

Tezza1 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

ON YA TEZZA! KEEP STICKING IT TO THE FUNDIES!!!!!!!

[edit] Harassment

Your harassment of myself and two other users has been referred for arbitration.[3] Thin Arthur 08:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Noted, Tezza1 11:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 22:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Tezza1 is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to advise that I have blocked this account for one year to implement this decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arb case

I don't know much about arb cases but if you think progress is stalled, contact one or more of the admins and ask. Maybe you have to submit evidence or make a statement next. 10:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)