What88

Message about what?

March 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page VoterMarch has been reverted.
Your edit here to VoterMarch was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/user/VoterMarch) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Louis Joseph Posner

Hello What88,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, Louis Joseph Posner, may be copied from http://maps.thefullwiki.org/Louis_J._Posner. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Louis Joseph Posner

The article Louis Joseph Posner has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. --ikseevon^(T)(E) 16:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Louis Joseph Posner

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 Louis Joseph Posner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. 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 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 "Click here to 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. Revolution1221 (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC) OK, thank you for reminder.what'sup 12:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright advisory

Hello What88, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

In respect to your note here that "Outside articles have been used as a guide, but am in the process of rewriting the article so there is no copyright violation", our policies do not permit you to even temporarily paste content onto Wikipedia that you have copied from elsewhere. If you need to use copyrighted material as a base, you must do so elsewhere and rewrite thoroughly consistent with our policies before placing content here. However, it is not advisable to use copyrighted content as a base, as you did, as it can be very difficult to rewrite thoroughly enough to create a new version. The rewrite you produced would be completely unacceptable by our local policies if not for the fact that the material originated on Wikipedia anyway. A bot comparison of the external page and your final product shows substantial overlap remains: [1]. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing includes some tips for writing from scratch that will help you create a document in keeping with our policies.

I have resurrected the earlier versions of this article so that there is not a copyright issue with this one, but will notify the administrator and tagger who originally deleted the content so that they can evaluate if their concerns remain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Promotionalism

This article was listed by another editor for speedy deletion as being exclusively promotional. As reviewing administrator, I agreed it was highly promotional, but I thought it would be possible to remove the promotional material, and I did so instead of deleting it. Do not restore it. Do not duplicate content with the article on his organization. Do not include lists of other more famous ppeople who attended events he appeared at or that he sponsored. Do not include material about the events on speaking tours he helped promote--I removed that entire section, as it seemed the purpose was advocacy of his ideas. That sort of advocacy is regarded here as promotionalism also.

this is an encyclopedia, not an instrument for social change, except to the extend that a reasonably reliable neutral point of view free encyclopedia can serve as one. For it to do so, requires maintaining this NPOV. That many of us might agree very strongly with what he has promoted is not relevant.

The promotionalism was so rampant, that I consider it necessary to give a formal warning, which follows. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC) In particular, his

Noted what'sup 04:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Noted what'sup 04:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Louis Joseph Posner, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited VoterMarch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2000 presidential election (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) 19:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Your recent editing history at Louis Joseph Posner shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not an edit War. The reasons for editing have been given, and are based on sound reasons.what'sup 21:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Further, the additional items set forth in the Article under Career were made in accordance with the request that there be more secondary citations. what'sup 21:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It is an edit war no matter how warranted you may consider your edits to be. Please stop larding the article with collateral material about the subject. And stop reverting other editors' changes. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Louis Posner

You need to slow down a bit. The subject is already on the fringes of notability. Adding material about his unspecified role in "important cases" and adding photos does not help the case but in fact by being such obvious makeweights, makes it worse. JohnInDC (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

As you stated, the "subject is already on the fringes of notability." I have thus nominated the article for speedy deletion. User:What88 09:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are noted. However, just trying to improve the Article, as would be the case in trying to show notability.

There is additional material to add, but will hold off for now.what'sup 20:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)what'sup 20:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. As you are looking about for sources, please don't focus on places where he's just mentioned (e.g. a routinely reported legal decision) or standing next to someone famous. Focus on articles or other things that disinterested parties have written about him. That is what establishes notability. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Noted; what'sup 20:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't remove those NY Post articles. The NY Post is a reliable source, and the links to those articles can be directly linked, unlike several of the other references in the article. It may be that they portray Posner in a less-than-favorable light but that is the downside of being the subject of a Wikipedia article. Reliably-sourced, well-covered content is included whether it's flattering or not. JohnInDC (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that you are Posner or that this is an autobiography, but this page - Wikipedia:An_article_about_yourself_is_nothing_to_be_proud_of - is still helpful in understanding how, and why, an article about someone can't be kept free of negative - along with positive - information. I hope it's helpful. JohnInDC (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to the inclusion of both positive and negative information in an article about a living person, as long as it is not libelous. I am just simply trying to give a full and neutral portrayal of the arrest and criminal conviction.what88 18:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The New York Post articles are duplicative of articles already referenced, including articles from the NY Times, ABA Journal, etc. The NY Post is known for sensationalism and yellow journalism, and should not be included unless needed.what88 17:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The NYT article described only the charges. The ABA article focused on the disbarment. The NY Post articles described the charges against Posner, the plea agreement, the sentencing, the terms of probation, and the dismissal of the charges against his wife. They covered the matter in substantially more detail and as such are appropriate to the article. JohnInDC (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed the link you supplied to Posner's brief at the AD. It's not a reliable source but a statement of his position and, unless it's there as support for his *asserting* that position, is not appropriate. I would leave it out, just as I would leave out the NYPD brief. JohnInDC (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The Article cited concerning the seized funds was largely the position of the NYPD during litigation. The Brief was filed in the Appellate Division of New York State and the 5 Judges of the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the position of Posner in their published Decision.what88 17:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is a reliable source and merely reported the NYPD position (along with a quote from Posner's attorney). It became necessary to add it once you had added the decision about the seized funds, which had not been previously mentioned. The Appellate Division's decision is the last word on the subject and refutes the NYPD position, in favor of Posner's. Again Posner's brief is not a reliable source and has no place in the article. JohnInDC (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to 1) stop removing reliable sources and 2) stop adding non-reliable ones like briefs submitted by the subject of the article or press releases issued by his accountant. These are the antithesis of reliable, independent sources. Please go read WP:Sources before you add anything else. I am concerned that you do not understand what is proper and what isn't. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I read read WP:Sources and the legal brief is not "self-published work" like a blog. The 65 page Brief is a legal document filed by attorney Jonathan S. Gould and used by the Appellate Division of the State of New York in their unanimous 5-Judge Decision. I also take exception to the NY Post being considered a "mainstream" newspaper.what88 18:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A court brief is an argument, created by a legal professional on the sole behalf and in the sole interest of a client. It is for all sourcing purposes the same as a document prepared by the person himself. JohnInDC (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

A legal document prepared by an attorney and submitted to Judges of a Court is subject to strict legal ethical requirements, and is NOT the same as a pro se document.what88 20:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, pretty much those strict ethical requirements require the lawyer not to lie or to advance a position he knows is not based in fact. A brief on behalf of a client is about as far as you can possibly get from a disinterested source. JohnInDC (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand your position and acknowledge that Wikipedia views primary legal documents as not as reliable as independent secondary sources. However, in my view, a well written brief that is referenced directly to documentary evidence in the record and controlling law, is of greater significance than an article reported in a tabloid which has as its primary focus the sale if newspapers for monetary gain through sensationalism.User:What88 21:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Louis J. Posner - Cases

Louis Joseph Posner was counsel for defendant Leonard Schaen in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) insider trading case involving Motel 6 in the U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., and related class action suit..

Posner also represented the plaintiff in Ox v. Union Central Life, a U.S. District Court case involving wrongful rescission of a disability insurance policy, which was reported in Westlaw, Lexis, Mealey's Litigation Reporter and the American Disabilities Reporter. User:What88 11:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of What88

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 What88, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, 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. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Dark Sun (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Repost of John Vincent Saykanic

A tag has been placed on John Vincent Saykanic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted because the subject, John Vincent Saykanic is a high profile criminal defense and appellate attorney, and has handled some interesting and high profile cases including:

Edward Forchion, “The New Jersey Weedman”, a marijuana and First Amendment activist criminal defendant on appeal in the “Glen Ridge High School” rape case, which received national attention and spawned a book Our Guys by Bernard Lefkowitz Organized Crime, including Joseph “Scoops” Licata, Philadelphia-Atlantic City Mob Boss Nicodemo “Little Nicky” Scarfo, and New Jersey Mob Capo Robert “Cabert” Bisaccia, and New Jersey Crime Boss Martin Taccetta. The Article is supported by 10 independent references to reliable secondary sources. A previous version was deleted in July 2010 because: "no significant coverage of the person by independent reliable sources" and "A lawyer doing what a lawyer does is not particularly notable. Given the edit history, this page hints of self-promotion." John Saykanic, Esq. is also mentioned in the Wiki article about his client Ed Forchion, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Forchion What's Up (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC) This version has been on Wikipedia since March 2013 without any objections. The current version has significant coverage by independent reliable sources, there is no hint of self-promotion, and the lawyer is, in fact, notable.

This is not circular reasoning, but rather solid reasoning based on fact and the quality of this Article. There are over 4 Million articles in Wikipedia and the quality and content of this Article is better than many of these existing articles in Wikipedia.

A lot of time was spent in writing this article in a neutral and noncommercial manner. Criminal defense attorneys are the most sought after attorneys in the mind of the public, and this article adds to Wikipedia.User:What88 20:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed, but not surprised, at how Wikipedia deleted a well written and informative article about a high profile attorney. SHAME ON YOU! User:What88 04:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: VoterMarch

Hello What88. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of VoterMarch, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "Not notable" isn't a valid reason for speedy deletion. I recommend you take this to WP:AFD if you still want this to be deleted, but beware that it may well be kept. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Your decline is noted. However, there still exists the following:

However, the Wiki demand for notability and cleanup is not likely to occur for this Article. Most of the activity occurred in 2000 and 2001. A lot of the newspaper articles are no longer on the Internet. At that time there was a "media blackout" of activist events. Much of what happened was unreported, and is only listed in blogs and other sources which Wikipedia views as not reliable. If Wikipedia is only a collection of mainstream press articles, then Wikipedia is really just a summary of what somebody can just as readily get in a Google search.User:What88 21:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

These are issues for discussion at AfD. This article does not meet WP:CSD criteria. Dlohcierekim 14:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Louis Joseph Posner

Once an article has been declined for speedy deletion, it is usually best to consider AfD or PROD. Tis article is eligible for neither WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G7. Considering its history and the number of refs, WP:AFD would be the venue in which to seek deletion. Dlohcierekim 14:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Point. I see that the article has already been nominated under WP:AFD for deletion.User:What88 18:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking over your talk page

I think you need to refrain from tagging articles for deletion. There are many articles that need improvement. You might want to do more of that. Thanks Dlohcierekim 14:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point. There are several articles that I have been planning on improving, but I have been sidetracked by this controversy over the Posner article.User:What88 18:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Louis Joseph Posner G4

A link to a prior discussion would be required. I see no such discussion. I see a deletion for a page move. Dlohcierekim 15:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The article was originally published by User:Lawline who was banned. I am reviewing archives to see discussion. Thank you.User:What88 15:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

and it has been suggested that you are Lawline. T'would have been less wear and tear if you'd have just WP:AFD'd the thing. My opinion is subject is NN, so I went ahead and nominated it. My recommendation is that you get a glass or cup of your favorite beverage, put on your favorite music, and let the AfD play out. Been doing this a long time, and NOTHING on Wikipedia is worth getting excited about or worth getting ulcers over. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not Lawline. I agree, the subject is NN. Thanks for the advice. I am not taking this personally; however, I believe that one has a heightened ethical responsibility in any biographical article involving a living person. User:What88 18:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts per the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawline. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC).

I disagree with the findings and object to being blocked. By blocking my access to Wikipedia, you are violating my Constitutional right to free speech and expression. This is particularly abhorrent in the case of Wikipedia which espouses to be a People's encyclopedia. Blocking should only be exercised for "hate speech" or other serious violations.

It is now clear to me that Wikipedia operates like fiefdoms where anonymous editors and administrators on "power trips" seek to control users and their contributions. I find it disgraceful that these anonymous editors who often know very little about the subject matter of an article believe that they have the right to chop up an article and change and delete whatever they don't like. One example, is how User:JohnInDC removed a picture of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi speaking at a VoterMarch event in San Francisco.

I am not impressed with the "gold stars" and the banners that the editors and administrators display. I see right through the culture of Wikipedia that allows tyrants to run amok.

I predict that Wikipedia will follow the course of www.MySpace.com which now has a global ranking of 828. See Alexa ranking at [[2]]

User:What88 03:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of VoterMarch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article VoterMarch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VoterMarch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:09, 5 January 2014 (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).

What88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This User was blocked as a sock puppet of Lawline. However, Lawline should have never been blocked in the first place and Lawline which was blocked in 2011 should be unblocked. The real story about User:Lawline is that an Administrator was making edits to an article written by Lawline. The Administrator had no knowledge of the subject area but engaged in cyber bullying against Lawline to get her way. Lawline indicated that he disagreed with some of her edits. Lawline also advised the Administrator that some of her edits could be viewed as libelous under New York law. However, Lawline NEVER threatened to sue and always respected the rights of Wikipedia and the Administrator. The Administrator then turned things around and claimed that Lawline threatened to sue Wikipedia which was not the case. The Administrator did this as a ploy to block and ban Lawline so she could could get Lawline out of the way and edit the Article the way she wanted to. Following the banning of Lawline, every User that in any way was associated with or supportive of Lawline was blocked and banned as a "sock puppet" of Lawline. Included in the "sock puppet" list was User:LuckyDan89 who was a college student who had been a Wikipedia user for over 5 years, and who was banned for making one small edit on a Lawline article. This User has never abused any accounts, has never vandalized any articles, and intends to continue as a productive member of the Wikipedia Community.

Decline reason:

Identical request to other confirmed Lawline socks. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:31, 13 January 2014 (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.