Athoughtforyou
Athoughtforyou (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't think my posts were disruptive. They compared the page that was nominated for deletion with another Wikipedia page that generated controversy and which was resolved. I thought that this added to the discussion of whether this entry should be deleted. My second post asked for further information about whether the press releases could be good secondary sources, and, while one editor said no, another pointed out that press releases from attendees' employers could be good secondary sources. In other words, far from disrupting this discussion, I think I added to it.
Decline reason:
It's obvious you created this account to be a single purpose account. — Jmlk17 00:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
Athoughtforyou (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I certainly did create the account in reference to this article. But is that bad? I thought there was a distinction between an SPA and a disruptive SPA. In looking at the SPA policy, I see this:
*
o If you are a newcomer or editing as a single purpose account
o Good policy-based editing will gain rapid respect. Ask others for help as you learn. The same policies apply to you as to everyone else, although your reputation as well as your evidence will inevitably be taken into account in discussions by some experienced editors.
o The community's main concern will be that edits by single purpose accounts are often a neutrality or advocacy concern or (in some cases) there may be problems with conflict of interest. Care in these areas will be seen as a sign of good editorship.
We are all new at some point, and I think that my comments contributed to the discussion (by pointing to an analogous Wikipedia entry, and asked for further clarification on policies. If you look at the SPA discussion, it seems to me that the response from more experienced editors is supposed to be patience and guidance, not a rush to ban. Again, I think the policy does not forbid SPAs (because we are all one at the beginning), but to ban disruptive ones who don't contribute to the betterment of Wikipedia.
One last thought, for any administrator who might look at this--with a company like ORT that seems to sue its critics, I believe it is possible that some of the SPAs (particularly the ones who, despite being new, seem to know what they are doing) have created those accounts so that they can express views but not risk having their true identity known by reference to their established Wikipedia account. I don't know if this possibility has any concrete value. I do know that anonymous speech has noble roots in the Federalist papers, and has value today when people try to add some truth to a debate but risk having to defend against a lawsuit as a result.
Decline reason:
If I'm understanding you correctly, instead of arguing that you're a SPA, you're instead saying you're a sockpuppet. Keep in mind, sockpuppets are fine (frowned upon, but fine), so long as they aren't created with the goal of doing something nefarious. We usually assume good faith except when there is evidence to the contrary. Keep in mind— that particular article is a hotbed of SPA editing and/or sockpuppetry, as is the concern of the AfD. — slakr\ talk / 02:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
{{unblock|Oh, no. I'm not saying that I'M a sockpuppet. I just can imagine why others might be under these circumstances. I'm an SPA. I just thought I was a helpful SPA with those two posts I made, not a disruptive SPA.}}
- (deactivated unblock request-- you can make 2 per year per block). Actually, if you want to make contributions elsewhere on the encyclopedia unrelated to that particular topic, I'd be more than happy to unblock you. Lemme know what all you plan to do and I'll gladly consider it. =) --slakr\ talk / 02:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You have now been unblocked per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Drstones. Unblock performed by User:Viridae. Oh behalf of the community, I apologies for this unfortunate situation. Outside comments are always welcome here on Wikipedia, and we hope you will continue to contribute. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome
editWelcome!
Hello, Athoughtforyou, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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! --B (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Society of Daughters of Holland Dames
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Society of Daughters of Holland Dames requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.hollanddames.org/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Status and Advice
edit- As reviewing administrator, I deleted the article. On the now deleted talk p. you said : "article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this person is notable by the works he has done for the perfume industry"
- But I eleted the article both because of copyvio and because it was promotional:an advertisement for the organization. There's no point asking for permission, because very little of the material there is usable: instead of describing the organization, it praises it. If you want to try again, consider doing it in WP:DRAFT space. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
James Robart article
editHello! I want to explain why I have deleted that case that you want to add to the James Robart article. To put something in Wikipedia, there have to be sources - reliable, secondary sources. Linking to the case decision is not acceptable; that is a WP:Primary source and we need WP:Secondary sources - things like newspapers, independent of the case, and proving that the case received coverage and was notable. Case reports don't do that; they don't demonstrate notability at all. Anyhow, the case decision doesn't provide the personal impact and followup details you want to include. Before I deleted it, I went looking myself to see if I could find better sources. (After all, you had claimed that the case "made headlines", so there should have been plenty.) Here was my search: [1] Most of the links are not reliable sources; they are partisan/non-neutral web pages like reason.com and PJ Media. There was one newspaper story from a neutral Reliable Source, the Boston Globe, [2], but it doesn't mention Judge Robart at all. MassLive [3] doesn't mention him either. We can't include this item unless we have neutral, reliable sources supporting. And the fact that we can't find those sources means it is not verifiable, which is one of Wikipedia's most important principles. Please don't add this again. --MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see your message before I added a source and reverted. I'm not sure why you consider reason.com to not be reliable/partisan. We could easily reach the conclusion that Washington Post and New York Times are liberal-biased. So, I would favor a broader definition of that term. I would be happy to submit this to senior editors, but I think that decision is notable, particularly for its cutting-edge protection of sexual assault victims/perpetrators, depending on how you view the woman in that case.Athoughtforyou (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
One last point--and I know we're supposed to assume good faith about edits, and I will do that with respect to yours--but please consider how it appears when you *know* he wrote the decision because I linked to the decision, but you don't think coverage by the Boston Globe merits notability when it doesn't mention his name. It's putting your head in the sand a bit to not be willing to observe that a major newspaper covered this decision, and that the name of the judge is easily ascertainable. Athoughtforyou (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- I was just writing a note to you but we edit-conflicted. Thanks for discussing it. My intent here was to explain my viewpoint, again, and delete the item, again, and invite you to the talk page where we can discuss it and get other people's opinions. And of course to point out Wikipedia's WP:3RR rule against edit warring. You are at your limit now; after I delete it, I will be also.
- Just to reply to your point about the newspaper stories not mentioning Judge Robart: it's not just that they don't mention his name; they don't mention his ruling. The stories are about the student's lawsuit and the university's actions; they actually make it look as if he already has the text messages. There is no mention of a court decision involving access to the text messages; there is nothing at all about the judge's ruling or whether it affected the case. The case did get a little bit of mainstream coverage; the ruling got none. The mainstream news stories do not report on his ruling or suggest that it had any effect, and the sources that do discuss his ruling are not reliable. (It may actually be that news stories from Reason Magazine meet the criteria - editorial control, reputation for fact checking and accuracy - but this is not a news story from the magazine. It is from the magazine's blog, which means it is an op-ed, not subject to any kind of editorial oversight. )
- Anyhow, we need to take this discussion to the article's talk page. I'll go and start a discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see you already started one. Good for you. I'll go join in. --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
February 2017
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on James Robart. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)