User talk:Tamarleigh

Welcome!

Hello, Tamarleigh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Filmtrauma for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD's are discussions, not votes. If you are trying to vote stack, it doesn't help and could get you into serious trouble. If the article in question isn't notable, consider trying to improve the article. Consider copying the article to your user talk page or sandbox and work on it there. If you are genuinely not a sockpuppet, then work on article and don't have hard feelings. Archtransit (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help! What is this sockpuppetry nonsense? I just don't happen to feel strongly enough to weigh in on things here very often. This is the 2nd time I wanted to edit a wiki page, and I log in for the first time in ages, only to find that because the first time I weighed in, I hadn't done so BEFORE, I was considered a sock puppet. I am not a sock puppet, and the issue with that other page about trauma in film has I believe long since been resolved, so I would very much appreciate being unblocked!! I don't quite know how to avoid this--do we really want people editing random stuff just to seem well-balanced to avoid unfounded accusations of being a fake user?? Thank you, Tamarleigh

P.S. I noticed just now also that the user who blocked me has been blocked! Presumably for a legitimate reason. But there was no legitimate reason for this person to have blocked me. I really appreciate it being reconsidered. Thank you. Tamarleigh (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I know the story (played a bit part in it) and that user wasn't blocked but did leave the project under less than ideal circumstances. Not that it has any bearing on your request. But, it has been a while since the block, so we might be forgiving. But I'd like to hear from another admin. Daniel Case (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thanks to the admin who responded. The wiki page for the user who blocked me states that that user has been blocked, so I don't know any of the history of it nor is it particularly relevant. What is relevant is that there is no need to be "forgiving" since I never broke any rules in the first place. Thank you. Tamarleigh (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

The fact that I don't log in very often does not mean I'm a sock puppet. This is the third time I've logged in, and I had forgotten all about this sock puppet block thing, but I want to edit pages that have nothing whatsoever to do with the page I commented on in 2008 about trauma triggers in film. That issue is important to me, but it is not the only thing I care about, and I am not a fake sock puppet account. Look me up on Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, MySpace, I am the only one named Tamarleigh so it should be pretty obvious that I'm real and not a puppet of the page owner of the page I commented on years ago. Please unblock me! It was only a suspicion of sockpuppetry, there was no proof of it and there is ample proof online that I am real. Thank you.

Accept reason:

I am prepared to unblock you. Even if you also created the Filmtrauma account, that account hasn't edited since 2008. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Now I see what the issue was, it wasn't that the person thought I was a sockpuppet of the film account, more that it was a sockpuppet of me? :-) I totally know the person whose account that is in real life, in fact she is one of the most awesome people in this world. She is much cooler than I am. I am not she. :-) Thank you! Tamarleigh (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, hope you have trouble free editing from now on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am trying to make an edit today and notice that I am apparently still blocked. It is years later, the edits I have tried to make have nothing to do with the first page I happened to edit, and an administrator approved my unblock request. Please, someone, unblock me. I am a real person. Look me up anywhere online and you will see that I am the one and only Tamarleigh. Please unblock me. Thank you!

Tamarleigh (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Tamarleigh[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

the original block was wrongly applied; there was no evidence whatsoever that i was a "sock puppet"; the block was made on me because I had only happened to comment on one page. well, i've been trying to edit other pages ever since, but thanks to this totally unfair block, have been unable to do so; and last, I am a completely verifiable non-puppet with a significant internet presence, giving ample opportunity to check my non-sockpuppethood. Last but not least, I have already been informed many months ago that the block was going to be lifted. Please fix this.

Accept reason:

Although an admin accepted your previous unblock request, you weren't actually unblocked - I suspect it was just an oversight. I've unblocked you now, so you should be able to edit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamarleigh (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Tamarleigh[reply]

I would like also to note that the so-called "evidence" for this block was that my usage pattern was atypical. I would like to call attention to how polite I am being despite the fact that this block has persisted for years now. I am incredibly frustrated by the way this is being handled. I find it very difficult to swallow the notion that the first thing a user does on wikipedia is start madly editing all kinds of random pages. I frankly think that participating in a limited way in one discussion sounds to me like VERY typical new user behavior on a web site. Furthermore, my behavior since 2008 (yes, this happened in 2008!!) has also been highly typical in that I am still here, still trying to contribute to this project, and did not wither away as I would expect an actual 'sock puppet' would have done. This seems to me a blatant misuse of blocking privilege, a very poor method of welcoming new users, and a persistent refusal to make it right. What exactly do I have to do to prove to you people that I'm not a puppet? Do you want me to make an appointment with someone and show up in person with my ID and with the person who started the filmtrauma page and her ID? Would you like me to send you photos of me with that person? DNA samples? What do you want from me? Look me up, I am all over the internet and there is nothing I've ever said/done related to the issue of trauma triggers in film other than to contribute in this one discussion, for which I've been penalized unfairly for four years. Come on, Wikipedia elite. Give the 99 percent a break. Tamarleigh (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Tamarleigh[reply]

I'm sure the previous failure to unblock was accidental, so I've unblocked you now - sorry you have had such an unpleasant experience. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zebedee! Tamarleigh (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and Tin and Copper

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Fish and Tin and Copper, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/CORNISH/2000-08/0966705911.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I took out that reference. Tamarleigh (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Patrick Thaddeus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National Research Council

Tom Dame (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National Research Council

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great catch, bot! I will fix those. Thanks :) 50.12.165.113 (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]