User talk:Sallieparker

Welcome!

Hello, Sallieparker, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Guinnog 06:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Joseph Rowbottom

A tag has been placed on Joseph Rowbottom requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Mkdw ^talk 07:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Joseph Rowbottom

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Joseph Rowbottom. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Rowbottom. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Writer's Comment

It is perfectly all right with me to have the "Joseph Rowbottom" article become merely a "Rowbottom" article inasmuch as there seemed to be nothing in Wikipedia on the subject before my article. Just "Rowbottom" is fine and appropriate. Nevertheless, there probably should be something about Joseph Rowbottom.Sallieparker (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth Avenue El category

Actually the "abandoned subway lines" category is the only one we have. Other elevated railways are in that category, and it needs to be renamed. I see from the category talk that the error has been noticed before, by myself among others. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure the whole category needs to be renamed. Perhaps the "Defunct New York City Elevated lines" can be a sub-category. ----DanTD (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Elevated Lines need their own category. In New York City, the El lines were a separate metro system from the Subway system. It was different with the London Underground: there, the original above-ground Metropolitan trains of the 1860s ran at surface level or in shallow trenches. Their network was easily integrated with that of the electric 'Tube' trains that began service 40 years later. But this never happened in New York. The El lines of the 1870s were never combined with the electric subways of the 1900s. No one ever mistook an elevated subway for part of the "El" system. When the Third Avenue El finally came down in May 1955, no newspaper referred to it as part of the subway system.Sallieparker (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Colonel Bogey March, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ace of Hearts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall this, though it is possible that the wrong link was cut-and-pasted.Sallieparker (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Spectrum (radio program), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 10:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Breen

It is concerning to me that you deleted a fully referenced comment regarding Breen's anti-Semitism simply because you did not like it; that is not valid grounds for removing encyclopaedic text. I will be monitoring your edits, and if I notice that you are disturbing, distorting or deleting text to push some form of agenda I will contact the necessary administrators. Quis separabit? 22:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) "It is concerning to me..." Your comment was not adequately referenced at all, let alone "fully referenced." Eh, boychik? 2) And WHO are you, exactly, "Quis separabit?", other than a contentious little anti-Catholic Marxist? 3) Yes, please do "monitor" my edits, and I'll be watching for you, too: online and otherwise!Sallieparker (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the anti-semitic nature of "Eh, boychik?" which I will take to WP:ANI, your ahistorical almost Orwellian attempts to whitewash the Irish-Catholic nature of American film censorship and Breen's own intense anti-semitism as amptly documented by writer Thomas Doherty (the quote you keep trying to delete is on page 98), are nonsense. Take it to The Wanderer or The Irish Echo or wherever. And I am no more a Marxist than you are an editor in good faith. Quis separabit? 23:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Joseph Breen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your comments to Quis separabit?, above, are highly inappropriate. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NO, the comments to this character are NOT "highly inappropriate" given the abusive messages I have received from this person, posted here as well as sent to my email accounts. Sallieparker (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

G'day "Sallieparker." Your name has once again come up on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You might stop by and say hello. Here's the link again in case you need it. ANI. Best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sallieparker. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SP Notice

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).

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

Request reason:

Apparently someone has been attacking me/posing as me/sending me threats via Wikipedia. I just discovered this now. The culprit may be this person using the alias "Quis separabit?" who has been sending me abusive messages for several months. By the way, I am not "Alf.laylay.wa.laylah" as suggested in the "Sockpocket investigations" thing above. Unblock me so that I don't have to post using a different account. Thank you.

Decline reason:

(a) You'll really need to substantiate your allegations below -- in particular, your accusations against User:rms125a@hotmail.com. What makes you think he created NYFinanceGirl? (b) Nobody says you are User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah; that user simply advised you that there was a sockpuppet investigation involving you. (c) This unblock request does not address the reason you are blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Further and Better Particulars: I have paid so little attention to this stuff that I was unaware there was any controversy. Apparently this Robert M Sieger, or rms125a@hotmail.com (current Wiki signature "Quis separabit?") has created a lame parody of me called NYFinanceGirl, which almost immediately got banned as a "sockpocket" around 30 May '13. This is in addition to the abusive emails he sent me around that time. He got himself blocked twice around 2005-2007, and seems to have a long history of tetchiness. I made no personal insults to him on Wikipedia (other than criticising the made-up third-hand quotations that he like to cite). I may well have been harsher when I responded to one of his vitriolic emails. 35MntgmrySt /SP Sallieparker (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JP Notice

This is for Jpgordon, in reply to remarks above.

OK, JPG, I have addressed everything I know about. You will have to be more specific about your queries. The ostensible reason for blocking is "disruptive editing," but I made no disruptive edits, apart from maybe a typo here and there.

Perhaps you are asking for the abusive emails from Robert M Sieger [rms125a@hotmail.com (current Wiki signature "Quis separabit?")]? I can send you what I have. I would not post them here because they run too long, and all they do is repeat the filth we see above, which has been a trademark of Sieger's for many years. (See: http://able2know.org/topic/63547-1 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eliz81/RMS )

The reasons to think that it was Sieger who made up the sockpocket "NYFinanceGal" are that: a) he has a history of doing this sort of thing, as indicated in the URLs above; b) the IPs are said to be in the same general location; c) it wasn't me, and I presume it wasn't you; d) the shrill, feverish rhetorical style is very similar to that of Sieger's comments here and elsewhere; e) the account name was obviously conjured up in parody of my thumbnail bio. Rereading the "Alf.laylay.wa.laylah" comment, I still find it very confusing. Why would I make up a sockpocket as a lame parody and and insult to myself? Perhaps to play the victim? No, no, not my game.

And so, over to you. /SP Sallieparker (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is not really an unblock request ... if you're trying to communicate with a specific admin, use the "e-mail this user" function". If you're merely replying, then simply reply. If you're requesting unblock, it needs to be WP:GAB-compliant (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FINE, BWilkins. I don't have Josh Gordon's e-mail address so I can't e-mail him. Just unblock the thing or tell the reason why. I'll take care of the Sieger problem myself. /SP Sallieparker (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the "email this user" on the left of his userpage under "toolbox". He should have it enabled. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will, however, not reply in this case. Any continued discussion regarding this should either be public, here, or should be sent privately to ArbCom. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU JOSH, but you just DID reply. Appreciate it.

Sieger's Fake Vandalism

I made an alarming discovery this morning... It seems Sieger didn't just do the fake-socky "NYFinanceGal" thing once. He did it many times. Go to the History page for the Joseph Breen article and you'll see them there, in the latter part of May. I have not read them all, in fact I haven't read any of them except the one reproduced on Dmries's talk page, which I took to be a one-off bad joke.

Sieger had threatened to do something like this, but I didn't know what he had in mind. He implied however that he had pulled some little numbers on other people.

Now, you people KNEW about these multiple postings, and you did not tell me. You did not alert me with any emails or any notice other than snarky postings to this page and elsewhere.

To repeat: I am not and never was "NYFinanceGal"--a throwaway alias almost certainly made up by Robert M. Sieger. Take a look at the IPs. (Robert M. Sieger is rms125a@hotmail.com, current Wiki signature "Quis separabit?") He may have used a neighbor's Wifi or the library Wifi to disguise the location; he may have done it at Starbucks or his parents'; perhaps he had Anita do it. I don't know the details, but Sieger's fine hand was behind this.

For now, just unblock me. I expect you to take some action against Sieger as Wikipedia has done in the past. If you don't want to bother, fine; I can have someone else speak to Sieger directly and you won't have to be involved. /SJP Sallieparker (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NYFinanceGal was neither you nor RMS. Your accusations and implied threats are not reflecting well on you, and are making an unblock less likely, not more. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) "Accusations and implied threats"? That's pretty rich. The accusations against Robert M. Sieger, rms125a@hotmail.com, are on target. And I made no threats. Just an advisory note. (I don't get tough, Mr. Gittes. My lawyer does.)

2) You just admitted that you know the socky was not me. So why am I blocked? Bit of lapse in logic there, hey, "Writ Keeper"?

3) You claim Sieger's fake vandalism was not done by Sieger. That is a possibility, but unlikely. (Perhaps it was Sieger's imaginary friends, Marvin and Nettie?) Come on. I've got e-mails from the guy. It was Sieger.

4) Okay now, here's a tossup for fifteen points. Why didn't you notify me when all this vandalism was going on? Buzz.

5) You go right ahead, keep blocking me. I'll just go back to SJParker or MTBacon or Elinor66 or whatever, and one of the half-dozen or so IPs we have available here. In the meantime, we'll have someone look into the Sieger problem.

/SJP Sallieparker (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

If I had known about the socky "NYFinanceGirl" multiple vandalisms, I would have responded earlier, but I received no communications and found out only when I logged in yesterday. I had nothing to do with any of the purported vandalisms. I believe these were all the doing of someone named Robert M. Sieger, whom I do not know personally, but who had previously threatened me in comments and in e-mail, and whose culpability is clearly evident in his late-May postings. I believe it is improper for Wikipedia to permit a known vandal like Robert M. Sieger to attack other users. Clearly I am not the first, or even the dozenth, whom he has attacked in this manner. I will not pursue this further, at least not via this "unblock" method on Wikipedia. /sjp Sallieparker (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So, over 10 days, dozens of admins have reviewed this unblock request, and for various reasons have failed to accept it - yet, not outright declined it. I have now reviewed this page a half-dozen times myself, and still do not see a WP:GAB-compliant request, and have great trouble overcoming the clear evidence (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thanks, anyway, Bwilkins. Sallieparker has gone to ground (RIP 2006-2013), at least for the present. I've scarcely used the alias in the past couple of years. I haven't even contributed a new article as Sallie since Ion Trewin in January 2012.

I am puzzled by your remark that you "have great trouble overcoming the clear evidence." Evidence of what? Please expand on this. (You may do so privately; you don't have to put it here.)

The Basic Story is that I was repeatedly attacked by veteran Wiki-vandal Robert M. Sieger: on Talk pages, edit comments, and e-mails to me, and through his favorite tool, the reverse-sockpuppet (see above). My supposed "offense" to him was responding to one of his threatening notes by calling him "boychik." Boychik is a yiddish term of endearment, often used patronizingly. Sieger screamed that the word was "anti-semitic" (!). Actually Sieger found it offensive because it is yiddish. You and I might think yiddish is cool, but it's a hot-button issue with Sieger. He wants the world to know he's not from a yiddisher background. His shrieks of outrage were purely theatrical. He figured the average Wikipedian wouldn't know anything about "boychik." Furthermore he was certain the poltroonish administrators would be terrified of defending someone accused of being an Aunty Seemite, even if the name-calling was done by a longtime troublemaker like Sieger.

Sieger, or one of his throwaway avatars, thereupon created a character called "NYFinanceGirl" who was supposed to be based on me. It was very poor mimicry. He got his "NYFinanceGirl" banned, and persuaded some administrators that this inept lampoon really was me. And that's where the situation stands at present.

Remote Causes of the War. This whole kerfuffle followed my deletion of defamatory and/or apocryphal material that Sieger posted on Joseph Breen. Sieger quoted a dubious letter-excerpt from a recent pop-history of Hollywood, in which Breen is supposedly denouncing the immorality of Hollywood Jews. The book itself is highly fictionalized, with imagined conversations, imaginary people, and so many errors of fact (that is, when it is apparently trying to be factual) that it is useless as a documentary source. Sieger could have framed the doubtful quotation within a disclaimer ("One recent book claims that...", eg), and there would have been no problem, but Robert M. Sieger does not understand the difference between a primary source and a book like 'Hollywood Babylon.' Anyway, I removed Sieger's citation, replacing it with an anodyne paragraph about the Great War. That's when Sieger went ballistic.

Sieger's Anti-Catholicism. I've gone pretty easy on Sieger so far, because he's far more articulate and careful in his writing than most Wiki contributors. You can tell he really puts a lot of time and effort into his stuff, and I give him credit for that. The trouble is, he has an anti-Catholic obsession that completely subverts his thinking. This is why he has been repeatedly banned from Wikipedia. This obsession has led into a subsidiary anti-Irish thing. When Sieger first started to post his anti-Catholic remarks ten years ago, most of his opponents seemed to be Irish Catholics, and he wrote long screeds on the subject. (I am not Irish myself, but I can see how Sieger would come to decide that Irish Catholics were his specific enemy.) Anyway this is why Sieger has adopted the alias "Quis separabit?", a slogan that he associates with north-Irish Protestantism. It allows him to masquerade, superficially, as a champion of that cause...a cause in which he evinces scarce interest otherwise...

Till anon, as it were.

Sallieparker (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, Ms Parker...

Word of advice - Never go full retard on wikipedia. It just doesn't pay.

Perhaps you wouldn't have been suspected of being a sock if you weren't such a raging anti-Semite. It makes it much easier to mimic you when you spout off like that. AGF doesn't apply to crypto-fascists.

You might also want to redact that bit about using socks. They'll indeff you for that (chuckle).

Oh, and if you really think I'm a sock of QS, the SPI is thataway---> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.140.36.11 (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This IP editor is actually a

Confirmed sock of Jonathan Yip (talk · contribs) - one of many - Alison ^❤ 23:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Sieger, meet Godwin's Law...

1) Robert, dearheart (that's English for 'boychik')... how many throwaway aliases have you used? 'Jonathan Yip'? 'NYFinanceGirl'? 'Chungo Bungo'? Those aren't bad handles by themselves, but then you go and get them banned, which means you can't use 'em again. Not too smart.

2) Did you really think your mimicry of my idiom was on target? It wasn't. It is clear that you pride yourself on your fluency in English. However, as you are not a native speaker, you cannot see your own clumsiness.

3) Did you really think I would believe that you had this vast network of confederates around the world, ready to chime in and support your oddball passions? You were very easy to smoke out with the Alison thing. (A smart person would have lain low and played along for a while.) You went to Brooklyn, or thereabouts, to post as 'Jonathan Yip.' Surely you could have found someone up in Montreal--maybe even in Minsk or Pinsk--to post as 'Jonathan Yip' for you? No?

4) As to your name-calling: have you ever heard of Godwin's Law? No? I'll tell you about it. Seems there was this famous poet named Percy Bysshe Godwin, I think, and his wife was getting abused by one of you folks, so Godwin laid down the law. And ever since then, anyone who calls another person a Nazzzi, or a Fasscist, or an Aunty Seeemite--or even a "crypto-fascist" (as Gore Vidal once did, to his later chagrin and million-dollar loss)--is considered to have lost the argument.

You lost the debate.

B'bye.

Sallieparker (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]