User talk:Esthertaffet

This is Esthertaffet's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

Invitation to participate in the mini WikiProject Dyslexia

Hi, Esthertaffet.

You seem to be interested in the topic of dyslexia --- would you consider joining the mini Dyslexia project?

It's a small group of Wiki editors who have had an ongoing interest in the dyslexia topics over the last couple of years. There's a long history of ..... uhmmmm .... divergent opinions among editors of this article --- the topic tends to generate controversial discussions, and it attracts people who want to climb on a particular soapbox. The project is an attempt to create a loose structure to help us collaborate on a set of articles related to dyslexia. Believe it or not, the main dyslexia article is considerably better than it was when we started, though there's still a long way to go before it'll be ready to submit for consideration as a "Featured article."

Hope you'll join us.

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schools

Greetings. So in re Summit School (Queens, New York), you made comments about orphanges. I saw we do have a category for that [1] with some individual orphanage articles. I doubt articles on all individual orphanages in a state would fly, but perhaps an article listing all those in a state might, under the banner of whatever state agency operates them, I suspect. There is an AfD going on now over the prison Polanski is in, which showed that prisons can be notable too as a state run facility, for example.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gefängnis_Zürich. Cheers, --Milowent (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how it got that way, but that's the way its been for some time, i guess. Part of the theory is that a high school is always notable to the community its in; also, wiki editors skew young and remember high school as much more important than it actually is. --Milowent (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

First, I was never told about this investigation on my talk page, so how was I supposed to defend myself? Second, have you ever considered the fact that this is an innocent editor who just had an interest in education-related articles but just happened to be there at the wrong time? Thirdly, are you just going to ban all users who edits in education-related articles? I don’t think it’s fair.

Decline reason:

CheckUser has confirmed via technical evidence that this account is a sock puppet. MuZemike 18:44, 10 October 2009 (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.

2nd Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

What do you mean CheckUser confirmed? CheckUser cannot physically see who is behind the computer, so there is no evidence. How would you know the real Jessica Liao is actually behind the account? The evidence according to Wikipedia is only based on editing habits, contributions and/or any sockpuppetry investigations. It's not entirely accurate then. If you could explain that CheckUser provides only partial evidence and that is the only reason that could get any user banned. Then, I understand. I don't know fully how the CheckUser works.

Decline reason:

Checkuser has indeed confirmed that this is a sock account of Jessica Liao. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao/Archive -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:27, 10 October 2009 (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.