User talk:ATurnerIII
Userfication of Chicago Film Producers Alliance
[edit]Hello. As per your request, the article has been undeleted and userfied. You may access it at User:ATurnerIII/Chicago Film Producers Alliance. Once you have improved the article so that it meets our organizational notability standards, you may move it back into article space. Have fun! --Kralizec! (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- In reference to your query on my talk page, articles for deletion discussions typically only last for five days. The CFPA article was one of a half-dozen that I deleted this morning. Please note that deletion discussions are not votes, but serve to determine consensus within the framework of Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines. In this case, the article in question did not meet the notability standards defined in WP:GROUP and was deleted. If the CFPA were covered in the future by significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, then you may feel free to re-create an improved (and properly cited) version of the article. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, on the AfD discussion page, you noted that "someone deleted my last comment that was put here before the article closed ... Users are manipulating this pages to fit their positions." However if you check the logs, you will see that your comments were added between 1:56 and 2:07, however the discussion had been closed at 1:44. When the discussion was closed, the page was automatically notated with a special header and footer stating that this is an "archived debate," "please do not modify it," "subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page," and "no further edits should be made to this page." As such, the nine edits you made to the page after closing were automatically reverted by other editors. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I realize you are new to Wikipedia, and believe me... I KNOW it can be a very daunting place for newcomers. I believe your article is worth saving, and deserves a place on Wikipedia, but at the current moment in time there is simply not enough media coverage in what Wiki terms "Reliable Sources" that meet Wiki's needs for such. Yes, it exists. It's legitimate. It has many notable award-winning members. But it just does not at this time have the in-depth coverages that Wiki requires for notability of a subject. I feel certain that this will change and do not wish you to be disgruntled. So I have copied your article into a workspace for you at User:ATurnerIII/sandbox/Chicago Film Producers Alliance. While in this workspace the article can be expanded, sourced, wikified, and brought up to standards for inclusion. Feel free to ask my advice or for my assistance. I would be glad to help you avoid conflict of interest and bring it back to mainspace for you in a few weeks or months when it "comes up to code". The deletion review is not about your company.. only about the article. Please have patience and all will work out. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you had posted a response at the AfD after it had closed, and after the article you authored had been subsequently deleted. Again, I am sorry that your views were at odds with the editors who opined at the AfD. I hope you will continue to build the article resting safely in your workspce. Please feel free to ask questions or seek advice. I am on your side, whether you think so or not... and will be glad to help you build an article that will NOT be sent to deletion discussion. Regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am completely disgusted with Wikipedia right now.--ATurnerIII (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- ATurnerIII, I can understand your frustration, but constantly declaring your dislike for Wikipedia, and then deleting other users' attempts to help you isn't helpful. If your talk page is too long, try archiving it. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- What difference does it make to you whether I like Wikipedia or not? Is this your darling site or something? Did I bruise your ego? Hurt your feelings? Yes, I don't care for a subjective and inconsistent process. And the fact that you and others have group think and banded together to delete the article is more evidence of the site's weakness. Sure, I can have more 3rd party article written about CFPA and will. In fact, they are being writting now. But, it's too late. This has become a legal issue. I'm in contact with my attornies about antitrusut violations and soon will contact the site's owner. You can't accept other similar groups for different reasons and selectively reject CFPA. It's illegal. And rest assured, when the summons are issued, your name will be on one.--ATurnerIII (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wait--you're threatening me and other editors now? What did I do? You don't even know my name or anything else about me, yet you're claiming that I and other editors are breaking the law. I can tell you that no sane judge in the world will hear a case against a nonprofit website simply because you weren't included on it, because it wasn't malicious, and there's no evidence of that. I had nothing to do with the deletion of your article. You say I "banded together" with other editors to conspire against you. You can look at my contributions and see that I did no such thing. There's nothing wrong with disliking Wikipedia, but complaining about Wikipedia ON Wikipedia is counterproductive. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I clearly shared with the entire group that Wikipedia's application of the notability standard was inconsistent. This site allowed similar companies to post articles with the same or less notability as ours. Non profits can also be sued, as well as you personally for being involved. This is not a joke. Your name can be determined by your user name and serving Wikipeida with a court order. Anti trust is serious business. You choose not to pay attention and now, trust me, a judge will listen. I know the law in this area well. I don't not make threats."--ATurnerIII (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm pretty sure claiming you're going to sue me is a threat. This is nonsense. It doesn't matter how well you know the laws, because none have been broken. Of course you can sue whoever you want, but actually going to court is different. You don't know my name, and most likely never will. Wikipedia doesn't have to include your organization, and the fact that you have been so hostile and uncooperative does not make the CFPA look any better. I'm tired of arguing with you about void threats, nonexistent judges, and your hurt feelings. Either work with Wikipedia, or don't, but you have no reason to threaten and harass people who have done nothing to you. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't make threats. If I wrote it, I meant it. And your name is easy to find. Trust me. My lawyers will find you. Save your money. You'll need it for your defense. You'll learn to mess with people's businesses.--ATurnerIII (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- If your lawyers are dumb enough to sue over this, they probably don't know their own names, let alone mine. Friginator (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't make threats. If I wrote it, I meant it. And your name is easy to find. Trust me. My lawyers will find you. Save your money. You'll need it for your defense. You'll learn to mess with people's businesses.--ATurnerIII (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm pretty sure claiming you're going to sue me is a threat. This is nonsense. It doesn't matter how well you know the laws, because none have been broken. Of course you can sue whoever you want, but actually going to court is different. You don't know my name, and most likely never will. Wikipedia doesn't have to include your organization, and the fact that you have been so hostile and uncooperative does not make the CFPA look any better. I'm tired of arguing with you about void threats, nonexistent judges, and your hurt feelings. Either work with Wikipedia, or don't, but you have no reason to threaten and harass people who have done nothing to you. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I clearly shared with the entire group that Wikipedia's application of the notability standard was inconsistent. This site allowed similar companies to post articles with the same or less notability as ours. Non profits can also be sued, as well as you personally for being involved. This is not a joke. Your name can be determined by your user name and serving Wikipeida with a court order. Anti trust is serious business. You choose not to pay attention and now, trust me, a judge will listen. I know the law in this area well. I don't not make threats."--ATurnerIII (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wait--you're threatening me and other editors now? What did I do? You don't even know my name or anything else about me, yet you're claiming that I and other editors are breaking the law. I can tell you that no sane judge in the world will hear a case against a nonprofit website simply because you weren't included on it, because it wasn't malicious, and there's no evidence of that. I had nothing to do with the deletion of your article. You say I "banded together" with other editors to conspire against you. You can look at my contributions and see that I did no such thing. There's nothing wrong with disliking Wikipedia, but complaining about Wikipedia ON Wikipedia is counterproductive. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- What difference does it make to you whether I like Wikipedia or not? Is this your darling site or something? Did I bruise your ego? Hurt your feelings? Yes, I don't care for a subjective and inconsistent process. And the fact that you and others have group think and banded together to delete the article is more evidence of the site's weakness. Sure, I can have more 3rd party article written about CFPA and will. In fact, they are being writting now. But, it's too late. This has become a legal issue. I'm in contact with my attornies about antitrusut violations and soon will contact the site's owner. You can't accept other similar groups for different reasons and selectively reject CFPA. It's illegal. And rest assured, when the summons are issued, your name will be on one.--ATurnerIII (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- ATurnerIII, I can understand your frustration, but constantly declaring your dislike for Wikipedia, and then deleting other users' attempts to help you isn't helpful. If your talk page is too long, try archiving it. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Re:Deletion of "Chicago Film Producers Alliance" page
[edit]I'm not even involved in this, so I don't know why you left a message on my talk page. Threatening me with legal action isn't really going to get you anywhere. ... discospinster talk 00:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I plan to pull everyone involved in the decision to delete the article into the antitrust suit. As far I as can see, there are 6 or 7 people. You are one of them, according to the pages I've reivewed.--ATurnerIII (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I won't insult whatever institution you got your degree from, if any; but you seem to have a problem grasping the very concept of consensus, slamming it as "group think". I must say, though, that your legal threats certainly show no indication that you've ever passed a course in antitrust law. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]