User talk:Bpmcneilly/Unblock Request

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Michael Thomas Moore Shannon

A tag has been placed on Michael Thomas Moore Shannon 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.

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. John Sloan (view / chat) 23:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a sysop and since Michael Thomas Moore Shannon fails notability guidelines for biographies, its going to continue to be tagged and deleted. See WP:CSD#A7. If you continue recreating the article, you risk a block. Thank you John Sloan (view / chat) 00:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Trolling is NOT tolerated here. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked three years ago for failing to understand why an admin deleted a page I'd created. When asking for an explanation of the reason the admin deleted my page the admin must have assumed I was intentionally vandalizing Wikipedia and being disruptive, and admittedly I was being a little disruptive and combative. This then lead to my indefinite block. I'd like my block to be lifted because this incident was years ago and I realize now how my actions were seen and will not do them again.

Decline reason:

I am willing to consider unblocking you if you can give a realistic impression that you really do accept what you did wrong in the past, and will not do the same again. However, at present your pretence at doing so is absurd. The article which you repeatedly created was clearly pure fiction, and to pretend that it wasn't intentional vandalism is complete nonsense. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2012 (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.

In response to my decline unblock request

This man was a teacher of mine, and a former mayor of my town, he had (at the time) recently been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, here is a link to my high school where he works, you'll see an entry for a Michael Shannon. I recognize in hindsight that creating the page violates the Wikipedia terms of biographic notoriety, however everyone saying that a person I know to exist, and a person I love in many respects, is simply a work of fiction offends me personally. I apologize for the infraction and know i will not do it again. I know this project has standards that it needs to uphold, I understand that. However i think it violates good faith to simply assume I am making this person up. I understand that creating the article violates other policies because the person was not famous, and by recreating the article I was committing vandalism. The point I am trying to get at is that I understand what I did wrong three years ago, in that time I have certainly matured, and I now feel I am able to rejoin the community. To explain some of the things I wrote in my unblock request, when i said i did not know why my page was being deleted, the user who nominated the page for deletion kept referring me to the Wikipedia guide for notoriety. However I found the language confusing at best, and when I pressed him for information about what he MEANT, not simply what the article said, the ban was put into effect; thus the sysop's comment about trolling not being tolerated. --Bpmcneilly (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

{{Admin help}} I wish to respond to my block denial, as the mod said he may consider it, however seeing as how I wish to be in good standing with the community I don't want to abuse the unblock request by putting in another one. However, as I am blocked I have no way of alerting the admin, as I can't edit his talk page with a talkback box. Any suggestions or help?

JamesBWatson probably has this page on his watchlist; if he does not answer, I will ping him in a day or two. Here are some things for you to read, and a few questions which might help us assess things:

• It's WP:Notability, not "notoriety", and it's a Wikipedia term used to describe how we decide which of the billions of people and things that exist are suitable subjects for articles.. Read WP:GNG and WP:42. Do you now understand what it means? Can you explain briefly, in your own words, why (though Mr Shannon may be a very worthy person) your article didn't show why he was notable enough to be in a global encyclopedia?
• Do you understand that Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia and not a place for gossip and jokes? ? You were offended when people thought your article was a hoax, but its jokey tone and the fact the the one reference did not mention its subject made that understandable. As an article about a real living person, it would also have been speedily deleted: please read the policy WP:Biographies of living persons, which includes:

"Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Do you see why nothing like what you wrote could be accepted?

• Wikipedia works on a WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: if you see a change you think would improve the encyclopedia, be BOLD and make it; but if it is then reverted, do not simply make it again, which can lead to an edit war; instead, discuss it, on a talk page, and try to come to a WP:Consensus with other editors. You were blocked because when your article was deleted you responded rudely and simply out it in again. Do you understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative community and if you are to join in you have to play by its rules?
• Finally, what sort of edits would you expect to make if unblocked?

JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to your points and questions:

1. The problem with the article I wrote, first and foremost was the scope of activities Michael Shannon was involved in. This prevented him from being Notable, thank you for correcting me, due to the significant coverage clause of WP:GNG. Additionally, as has been mentioned, the lack of links clearly meant it needed to be deleted because none of the facts, even if true, could be verified. Also, much of the information, if memory serves me correctly, was found through independent research, which is specifically mentioned as being prohibited under the definition of "significant coverage". I hope this serves to answer your second question as to why it couldn't be included on Wikipedia.
2. Yes, I understand why the rules are in place, and the purpose they serve. Which is to create an encyclopedia that is both free and open, and at the same time has standards of professionalism and integrity that allow people to read things here and know that they are true. My actions failed to uphold this because by defying the rules I sought to erode the confidence and seriousness of this project. The rules are here to prevent this, and thus maintain the authority that the encyclopedia holds.
3. Finally, as to the sorts of edits I would like to make. I started this unblocking process now because I wanted to make an edit to the article about Lowell George the singer for the band Little Feet. I was listening to a live recording on the Internet Archive and heard him say he was in a band called The Mothers of Invention and had been fired for writing a song about dope. When i went to his personal page, it mentioned him being fired, but had no source, and I wanted to append the page so as to include the reference to the concert where he mentioned this. Also, I wanted to add a link to the Mothers of Invention, because though they are mentioned in the article, a link to that page is not included.

I hope this list answers the points that you brought up. Bpmcneilly (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your swift reply. I am consulting. Be patient. JohnCD (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I have unblocked you. You have given a convincing indication that you do understand the situation. I have also checked a few biographical details about Michael Shannon, and it seems your article was not fiction after all. However, it really did look that way. I hope you can now have a more successful experience of contributing to the encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)