User talk:Angryacademic

Nomination of Justin Ardalan-Raikes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Justin Ardalan-Raikes 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/Justin Ardalan-Raikes 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. Voceditenore (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Justin Ardalan-Raikes. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Ardalan-Raikes

If you have any affiliation whatsoever to the subject of this article, please read WP:COI for guidance when editing under these circumstances as well as WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. If you have edited articles relating to this person under different account names, you need to read this page as well. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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) 19:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

It was a test and then I forgot my password so I thought it simpler to start a new account. There was absolutely no malicious objective

Decline reason:

Per discussion below. It does not seem as if it's that simple. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2013 (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.

I don't believe you. First, I don't know what you are referring to a test. Second, the original account was created a long time ago, so I can understand forgetting the password, but you created two new accounts on the same day (April 27). Why would you need more than one? Also, your editing with those accounts was inappropriate, apparently all aimed at promoting yourself by creating and recreating articles about yourself. Not to mention your diatribe at the AfD. So your contention that this was all done innocently is nonsense.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely upsetting. I certainly do not talk nonsense, I'm a middle aged professional man.

When I said test - I had intended for quite some time to generate a profile on wikipedia for a number of individuals deemed worthy of documenting. Since I've finally had the time to start I've realised that the process is complicated, long winded and very detailed. I was also unaware of just how stringent wikipedia procedure seems to be. Therefore I was merely testing the tools, controls and overall process and evidently without realising just what I was letting my self in for.

Your colleague has made a number of incorrect statements and assumptions that could easily have a knock on effect. Their less than thorough research and response in the matters I was writing about were unqualified. In the subjects that I write about I am a lifelong devotee. I have tried to point out their errors which has now escalated to you blocking me.

You have accused me of lying in saying you don't believe me. However I have not used the said previous accounts simply because I lost the passwords. Plain and simple. I tried to retrieve them but to no avail. Yes people forget passwords. Yes I generated one this weekend but when I got up yesterday I had not saved the password. My PC deletes all cookies as I log off so I could not log back on. So I simply generated a new account.

You're correct, the answer is I do not require two accounts nor do I want one. I had made an effort today to save the last one.

I have no need to promote myself. If you notice, the individual's profile I've generated this weekend does not go in to detail about their professional work (other websites do this) but only prominent family links since all of their other prominent family members have a wiki entry. It is absolutely OK and right for prominent noble families to list heraldic, military, civic achievments and geneological data on wikipedia for historical reasons. I have not even had the chance to accomplish that. And now to be accused of lying, accused of making up facts when clear and evident citations have been given is extremely upsetting and inappropriate.

As for diatribe - you may have noticed that I am feeling quite insulted about what has happened here here.

As I have previously made clear all of the information entered to the site this weekend can be corroborated very easily. Indeed all citations have already been disclosed and more were to follow.

How do we resolve this unfortunate situation?

I merely wish to generate a wikipedia entry for a number of prominent old families, some of whom are still living today so it's a sensitive matter.

I'm a little unclear about your contention that you had forgotten the password to and had not recently used your two-year-old original account:

Justjust12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

My recollection of the edit history of the now deleted Justin ardalan raikes is that it was created by that account just two days ago. Within hours of it being proposed for deletion as an unreferenced biography of a living person, Justin Ardalan-Raikes was started by the newly created account:

Justincaseyouwanna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

When that too was proposed for deletion as an unreferenced biography of a living person, User:Justincaseyouwanna removed the tag without adding references. Several hours later, you registered your current account:

Angryacademic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

You then continued to edit that article and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Ardalan-Raikes until you were blocked.

Are you saying that you have forgotten the passwords to your first and second accounts, both of which you have used in the last two days, and that this third account, User:Angryacademic, is the only account you currently have the password to? If so, and an administrator decides to unblock you, then you must use only this account for future editing. Voceditenore (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is exactly correct. I have to say though that I didn't realise that references must be added so quickly or else they are proposed for deletion almost immediately. So once I couldn't log back in due to losing password, I simply thought it easier to generate a new account. I'm still learning how to use the site.

Also I'm afraid I have no recollection of the first account from a long time ago that you mention. But in essence yes I'm happy to utilize this latest account from here on in. That was the intention in any case. It's just a shame that your overall approach to engaging with wiki editors is one based on devious individuals and consequently you treat everyone as potential deviants. That is upsetting I must say but also perhaps understandable.

What's further most upsetting is that people (who we don't even know) are concurring on deletion of the said entry and because I am blocked I cannot even support my valid points. How do we know that these individuals are not republicans, marxists or anti establishmentarians? They certainly feel that this indivfidual has no right to take his place next to his ancestors on wikipedia.

What's so incredulous is that wikipedia contains entries about all sorts of TV shows, much less achieved people in the industry yet I am being told that Ardalan-Raikes' achievements are zero. Further, why are many, many other old royals allowed to be listed on wikipedia yet this individual is not allowed to be? It makes no sense.

How can I have a simple opportunity to make a concise entry about this individuals' achievements, family and past?

Angryacademic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryacademic (talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 April 2013‎

The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument to keep an article based solely on the fact that other articles on non-notable subjects exist. There is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article, and many people try to create articles here to publicise themselves or their companies every day. Many of them slip under the radar. When they are found they are brought to deletion discussions.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, and we are particularly strict about biographies of living persons. We only publish information which can be verified by previous publication in what are considered to be reliable sources. "Notability" in the Wikipedia sense means that other reliable publications have taken sufficient "note" of a person to write about him or her in depth. It has nothing to do with who that person's relatives are or what that person's accomplishments are, unless those accomplishments have received significant coverage in reliable sources, the person has been awarded notable prizes for their work, etc. Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything gives the short version of our policies in this area. The following guidelines and policies will give you greater understanding about the processes involved:

If after reading those various guidelines, you find reliable sources with significant coverage devoted to Justin Ardalan-Raikes and post them here, I will be happy to add them to the article and to bring them to the attention of the deletion discussion for you while you are blocked. Finally, just to make it clear, I am not an administrator and have no power to block or unblock other editors. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's my point Voceditenore - old Royal families and old nobles are not slippers under the radar!! They have a right to be listed by their rank and history alone - that is notable in its self!

Voceditenore also, you have now mislead other editors/administrators about some thing and this is wholly reprehensible not to mention sloppy! You incorrectly state:

"The article frequently cites Pedigree of Raikes (Duncan Raikes, 1980) as a source for the subject's ancestry. The book can verify the existence of the people named in the article, but as far as I can see from the Google books search, there is nothing in it to verify that he is related to any of them, as he has no entry himself. Nor is he mentioned in the entries for his alleged parents Myrrhine Ann Raikes and Abbey Ardalan, who incidentally is described as "Raikes, Abbey Ardalan (formerly Abbey Ardalan), s. of Aziz Ardalan of Teheran; b. Teheran 9 Nov. 1939; ed. University of Rochester, N.Y., and Mozarteum, Salzburg; formerly Persian language teacher in U.S.A"

But you have failed to notice that the book you've found on Googlebooks (and used as evidence!) is merely a 'Snippet book' Pedigree of Raikes. It is not the full version and it only contains a few of the pages any way. I have the full version and a copy of the page where AR is absolutely mentioned! How do I add a photo? This now means that you've misled and cited that this individual and myself are liars! How are you going to correct this?

File:Pedigree entry.jpeg

JUSTIN ARDALAN RAIKES is mentioned in his family pedigree

What is the point of us citing and collating evidence with huge effort if you and your groups level of administration and research is so amateurish?

I have also noticed that one of the contributors to the deletion states that he is an atheist!! So this would be reason enough for them not to want the Ardalan-Raikes entry to see light of day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryacademic (talk • contribs) 14:36, 29 April 2013‎

Ad hominem arguments are seldom regarded as meaningful here. As far as the article is concerned, and note that I do not comment on your block, the point really is that a person's ancestry does not confer transferred notability. Even if the facts in the article are wholly genuine, and I do not disbelieve your statement to that effect, the article still qualifies for deletion as being about a non-notable personage with a notable family.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angryacademic, I am fully aware of how Google snippets work, and I stated quite clearly "as far as I can see from the Google books search...". You cannot upload a scan of a copyright work onto Wikipedia. If you can give the exact quote from Pedigree of Raikes (with the exact page number on which it appears) which explictly states that Justin Ardalan-Raikes is the son of Abbey Ardalan and Myrrhine Ann Raikes, that would be sufficient to establish who your parents are. If you supply the exact quote as specified, I will be happy to add it to the article and notify the discussion. Having said that, even if you were able to provide verification of who your parents and other relatives are, this would not attest at all to your own notability in terms of qualifying for a stand-alone Wikipedia article, as I have tried to explain to you here and as the other editors participating in the discussion have pointed out. I understand that you are upset that your article may be deleted and are taking this very personally, but please refrain from name-calling and attacking other editors and their motives. Stating that a particular editor is an atheist and would therefore automatically delete an article about a Christian is particularly egregious. All the editors participating in that discussion are highly experienced Wikipedians; three of them are administrators. I will refrain from commenting further here on your talk page because you are clearly not receptive to my advice about our referencing and notability guidelines. Perhaps you will listen to someone else. Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Bradbury - point taken. But you should know due to the nature of film finance and production that much of the work conducted cannot be found on the web. However why are you covering for your colleague's shoddy, insulting and misleading "work"? Why did your colleagues pull AR's progeny to pieces without applying the required amount of research, then citing and promoting falsities when not qualified to do so? These editors are NOT royal or noble geneologists! Your level of research (even though I have provided established academic citations for you) stretched as far as typing in some one's name in to google, then using the first piece of 'snippets' found then made further false and inaccurate statements.

Your group demanded citations, so citations were given but they weren't even checked by your group. By the way there are books and books and books to prove our points! Universities even have deep vaults on these families, they are knighted, decorated and recognized but wikipedia editors use derogatory accusations of speaking Nonsense and also accuse me of being a liar!

Seriously, your group need to think about this and if they have been at wikipedia for too long and are losing their grip then they should consider moving on. In another business/sector it could mean life or death! Some of your editors come across as knowledge police which would be OK except sadly many are not qualified or diligent enough to complete the task at hand!

Ardalan-Raikes certainly is notable enough for entry on to wikipedia when you have porn stars, utterly laughable singers from TV who have achieved nothing. But that is fine because noble or not, such individuals exist and are making marks (big or small) on culture and community at large. And that is why we have a right to be documented. However AR, comes from one of the last Persian royal families and was born into one of England's oldest protestant noble families. There are probably no others with such a background. That in is self is quite remarkable. Added to that he is prolific in London and US based film even if you can't find his name on the www.

Why did you choose to pick up Ardalan-Raikes' post for deletion? Why not let editors who are experts on royal geneology? Experts in those politics? (And the politics are still very much alive with such families in many countries, active at high levels of society and culture), experts in Orientalism? I'm afraid none of you are qualified to comment on these families achievements.

Incidentallyy one of your wikipedia editors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kinu describes himself as "interested in atheism" and "Beer" - So why would I want some one like that making decisions about my page? I do not! His statements therefore are not only biased but highly offensive! He may not take wikipedia seriously but I do!

Another of your editors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peridon describes himself as a producer but where is the evidence for that??? You have ignored Ardalan-Raikes' award winning documentaries that sell world wide, but have you afforded the same for Peridon? Do you see how sloppy and hypocritical this is?

So yes I'm sorry Voceditenore, Your work has been tardy, you try to back track, you don't apologise, you are presumptuous and you promote inaccuracies of your own making even though you've been provided with the facts. I take no joy in name calling, I am a middle aged academic, noblemnan far beyond name calling. However I will always tell the truth where that is vital!

Voceditenore You evidently don't know about google snippets else why would you deem that snippet to be the entire book which it certainly isn't? I have the complete book. You have been very careless and also highly insulting and sloppy. You have made statements which were wrong and misleading and you are now are back peddling - you categorically stated (because it's here for everyone to see):

" there is nothing in it to verify that he is related to any of them, as he has no entry himself. Nor is he mentioned in the entries for his alleged parents Myrrhine Ann Raikes and Abbey Ardalan, who incidentally is described as "Raikes, Abbey Ardalan"

But Voceditenore You are much mistaken. AR does have an entry and that is his family. I have from day one cited pages where such verifiable information is available but you have failed to pick that up so let me again give you the page numbers again (It's contained on a family tree page - In other words I cannot relay it ideally without sending a photo): plate 15 and on p57 it states:

Raikes, Justin Mathew Ardalan, s. of Abbey Ardalan Raikes and Myrrhine (nee Raikes); b. 27 May 1970 [plate 15].

And I think you'll also find that history (family trees or otherwise) is not copyrightable. That precedent was established at the trial here in London of Baigent and Leigh v Random House in 2006. I should know - I was there. My point is, one should be more prudent about handing out incorrect legal advice in public.

Voceditenore I am not upset that my article is being deleted. Please! I am upset because unqualified, rude, sloppy editors are making mistakes and then promoting those mistakes as fact then deeming that as an acceptable and correct activity! Further those same editors unable to apologise is simply ignoble!

Please don't accuse me of egregiousness when it is your colleague http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kinu who describes his interests as atheism and beer. You should not allow an atheist to engage or better to be allowed to adjudicate the profile of a staunch Christian who comes from a highly decorated and prominent English Christian family! How insulting is that??

Daniel Case why have you now reblocked me? Why are you wading in? Or is this you teams idea of having fun? Angryacademic (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't reblock you ... you were already blocked indefinitely as of yesterday.

I am "wading in" because this is how the unblock process is supposed to work: a request is reviewed by an uninvolved admin. Daniel Case (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case - You must have done because my first and only block was set to expire by midday today after explaining the situation in detail to Voceditenore but now you have blocked it indefinitely. You will find my explanations in previous posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryacademic (talk • contribs) 17:20, 30 April 2013‎

Note: Your block log shows you were blocked indefinitely on 28 April by User: Bbb23. [1]. The block notice on your page clearly stated "blocked indefinitely" [2]. Nothing has changed, no new blocks were made. Daniel Case simply declined your unblock request. Therefore you are still blocked indefinitely. Your explanation to me above has nothing to do with it. As said above, I am not an administrator and can neither block nor unblock you. I merely said that if an admin ever does unblock you, you have to stick to this account. Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore I am not arguing with you but yesterday it said my block would be lifted at midday and now this! S0 something is going on. And even worse how can I support my position when I cannot back up facts with proof because I cannot write on my page??

Further you also state:

"Update: According to the article's creator, [2], the subject's parents are verified on page 57 and Plate 15 of the above work, which I am willing to take at his word. I have added the ref to the article".

However it clearly states that Ardalan-Raikes' identity is of an "unreliable source" - please would you adjust this accordingly and add the reference as you stated you had but you havn't:

Justin Mathew Ardalan-Raikes Esquire (b. May 27, 1970) Mason's hill, Bromley, London, England is a film and television producer of mixed English and Persian parentage.[1][2][unreliable source?] [3][4]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryacademic (talk • contribs) 20:44, 30 April 2013‎

First of all, I did add the reference you specified. It is footnote [1] (Raikes, Duncan (1980). The Pedigree of Raikes, p. 57; Plate 15. Phillimore Press), which also references the statements lower down concerning his father and mother. Observe here. Secondly, [unreliable source?] follows and refers to footnote [2] ("Justin Ardalan-Raikes at the internet movie database"). Observe here. Wikipedia does not consider the Internet Movie Database to be a reliable source for biographies in general, and especially for biographies of living persons. As long as that remains as a footnoted reference, it will be marked as [unreliable source?]. The alternative is to move the IMDb biography to an External links section and not use it as a footnoted source for the article text. Voceditenore (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you resort to ad hominem attacks once more, either against me or another editor, I'll revoke your ability to edit this page. Instead of crying foul when the subject of this article is presumed to be non-notable, how about, well, actually showing that he (not his family, but he) is notable by providing sources? You'll find that will get you a lot further here than diatribes and insults. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have not abused multiple accounts, I have lost the passwords to my first accounts. I have already explained this in detail. I am not a liar :((( Angryacademic (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nothing in the above discussion convinces me of this - the accounts were created at the same time. In addition, your behaviour above - behaviour that is unbelievable for someone of the age and academic background that claim to hold - is simply offensive to this project, and indeed to humankind as a whole. Your outright suggestion that someone who likes beer and is interested in atheism is not welcome, or that an atheist has COI and would desire an article to be deleted is just absolute proof that you're WP:NOTHERE to be involved in the community nature of this project. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:17, 1 May 2013 (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.

May 2013

Your talk page access has been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]