User talk:Artsandopinion

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! -- Siobhan Hansa 18:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to palliative care. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I have pointed you to the relevant guidelines and policies that cover external links in Wikipedia. You are encouraged to add content to articles rather than using Wikipedia as a springboard to promote Arts and Opinon. -- Siobhan Hansa 16:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arts and Opinion article

I thought maybe a better response to your post to my talk page would be to roll up my sleeves and do some editing. I've had a go at re-working the article a little so that the relationship of the writers to the ezine is clear, but we also provide internal wikilinks for the well known authors and links to their articles on Arts and Opinion as citations. It did mean cutting the list down some (more names made it way too cluttered without really adding to the readers' understanding). I'm not sure about all the links to Arts and Opinion, it does make the piece seem more promotional, but we'll see what other editors think. I also tried to elaborate on your mention as you're currently the most notable thing we have about the ezine.

My version isn't set in stone (nothing ever is on Wikipedia), so if you have a problem with anything I changed feel free to say so.

If you can point me to other independent sources about yourself or the ezine that would be great. It really does need more independent evidence of notability, which is generally demonstrated through multiple, nontrivial mentions in respected publications of some type. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Siobhan Hansa: I want to first of all thank you for your keen editing and interventions, all of which are very acceptable. At some future point, I'll try to locate more independent sources, leaving you with this internal one from the wiki page on The Piss Christ. I hope the page now passes muster with the other editors, and if yes, an internal citation is owed to you.

Damien Casey, "Sacrifice, Piss Christ and Liberal Excess", Part I, Arts and Opinion, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2004. A defense of Piss Christ. Caution: some of Serrano's images shown on this page, including from the History of Sex series, may be unsuitable for some viewers. Artsandopinion 15:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Robert Lewis[reply]

Continued spamming of Arts and Opinion ezine

You have been pointed to our policies and guidelines which clearly state that adding links to your own sites is inappropriate. Please stop.

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I didn't realize that inserting what I felt was a legitimate link (not to be cofused with spam) constituted a wiki violation. Question #1: for example, if I feel that one of our articles would be appropriate, as link or reference, to whom should it be sent for vetting. Question #2: When can we we expect a decision regarding the alert box that precedes our wiki entry? Thanking you, Artsandopinion 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Robert Lewis[reply]

For links to your own site that you think will add encyclopedic information to an article, put a request (saying who you are, what the link is and why you think it is appropriate) on the talk page of each article you think the link is appropriate for. Editors of the article who aren't associated with your site will add it to the article if they agree it is appropriate. Most often editors do NOT add such links. You can find an article's talk page by clicking on the discussion tab t the top of the article page right next to the edit this page tab.

When you say alert box on the Arts and Opinion article I assume you're talking about the notice at the top that talks about notability. That comes off when a suitable assertion about importance (verified by reliable sources) gets added to the article. That's why I've been asking for mentions of the e-zine by independent, reliable sources (Wikipedia mentions don't count - we don't consider ourselves "reliable"). If the notice stays up much longer without anything substantial being done to address the concern, the article is likely to be prodded or nominated for deletion. -- Siobhan Hansa 23:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arts & Opinion has received personal article reprint permission from the likes of Leon Weiseltier (New Republic) and Mark Kingwell. Would their e-mails constitute credible assertions of importance? If not, what would? Artsandopinion 16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Robert Lewis[reply]

No. Verification has to have been published by someone. We don't accept or support authors' original research (which checking up on these emails would be). We write articles based on already published information. Most of the time the notability issue boils down to whether or not you've been noticed by mainstream media - for instance articles in well respected newspapers; or are the subject of independent study by a respected academic; or there are significant non-trivial mentions of you in authoritative niche media.

Each case is considered on its merits, so there are no hard and fast rules. In general press releases, statements by the Arts and Opinion e-zine (or people connected with it) and the like are only acceptable if they have been subject to appropriately rigorous fact checking by a respected, independent 3rd party and do not appear to be the result of public relations or marketing efforts by the subject. If other people haven't noticed the publication enough to have published some form of independent analysis of it, it probably doesn't meet the notability criteria. -- Siobhan Hansa 17:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing your 'so there are no hard and fast rules.' and appealing to your sense of fair play and flexibility as it applies to merit, Noam Chomsky, Mark Kingwell, Robert Fisk, Michael Moore, Jean Baudrillard, Barbara Ehrenreich, Arundhati Roy etc would have never consented to having their articles and essays republished in Arts & Opinion if it weren't a worthy, that is noteworthy publication. Given our high profile and considerable traffic, the stats of which I can make available upon request, I fail to see how the inclusion of Arts & Opinion will diminish the credibility of Wikipedia? 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Robert Lewis

What high profile? If you have a high profile you're probably very appropriate - but we don't have any evidence of that high profile, and that's what I'm asking for. You seemed to be approaching this as though you can convince us of your prominence like we were journalists looking to publish a piece on you. But we repeat already published information. If someone else hasn't found it noteworthy enough to publish - we don't. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If someone hasn't found it noteworthy enough to publish - we don't." By this do you mean other journals haven't requested reprint permission of our 'original' material? If that's what you mean, I can provide you names of journals that have republished our material. Absinthe Review, for example. 14:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Robert Lewis

I had meant that claims about your journal being important need to be published somewhere else. But if other well respected publications frequently reprint original material from Arts and Opinion, that could well show notability too. Do you have more details? -- Siobhan Hansa 16:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't kept track of reprints. I know there's one in Absinthe Review, there's another in On Line Opinion (from Australia) http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2757. If you think it's worthwhile to expand on this small list, let me know. Thanks, Artsandopinion 17:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Robert Lewis[reply]

Does this reference to A & O from Richard Landes [1]meet your notability criteria? http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/02/20/in-praise-of-envy/ Artsandopinion 02:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Robert Lewis[reply]

Could you advise us when a decision will be made re Wiki keeping or dropping A & O. Artsandopinion 13:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Robert Lewis[reply]

Response to talk page message

Hi Robert. It's not a decision it's a recommendation - all you (or any editor) needs to do to contest at this stage is to remove the "prod notice" from the page (edit the page and delete the text from the top through the line that reads ). This will stop the current process. It is preferable to address the concerns raised on the prod notice when you do this, but not obligatory.

The next step would be for me to decide whether to take to the community as a whole for what we call an articles for deletion (commonly written AfD) discussion. Discussions normally take 5 days and are open to the community for comment. An administrator will determine the communities consensus at the end of that time and decide whether to delete or not. I will follow this route if there is no improvement to the article in terms of finding independent, reliable sources that show some form of notability for your site. Claims that you are special and unique are not particularly convincing, nor are they relevant to our need for independent, reliable sources from which to actually build an acceptable article. -- Siobhan Hansa 20:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert - I aw that you edited the article - but you didn't follow the instructions enitrely - I said delete the text from the top through... You just deleted the bit at the end of the notice. I've removed the rest of the notice for you, since I'm pretty certain that's what you intended. I'll add the AfD in the next day or two when I have a bit more time. -- Siobhan Hansa 17:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link spam

Please note that your addition of links to articles on your website is considered link spam and an inappropriate use of wikipedia to promote your magazine. I removed the links you added to the Cruising (maritime) article, not just for being link spam but having nothing at all to do with the subject of the article (cruising on yachts, your article is on cruise liners, a very different topic). Russeasby (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Peru do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Victor12 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked single-purpose account

W

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place {{unblock}} on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. --Jersey Devil (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

WP:SPA used solely to spam links to artsandopinion.com. — Yamla (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2008 (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.

This unblock is totally unfair. My articles are published in Arts & Opinion. I have no choice but to refer to the publication. Why not consult with the editors of the pages in question and ask them to judge whether or not the content of my articles dserves mention. My article on Groupies has been cited by Pamela des Barres, whom the article cites throughout. Ask the editor of the groupie page to evalauate my article. If it's deemed unsatisfactory, detete it, but you don't have to block me. I'm a legitimate writer, editor of Arts & Opinion, and at the explicity invitation of wiki,I'm endeavoring to enhance some of its pages. Let's get real here, and finally distinguish between information and spam. As you read my work, which I assume you have done, do I strike you as a spammer? Also, the pages in question have been visited by the editors on several occasions since my references were volunteered. Why haven't they been deleted? Because the editors deemed the articles worthy.

Re your block.  I am not spamming.  I am adding articles of interest to subjects that usually have this:

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (August 2007)

from Groupie article. The link added article was widely quoted in the Pamela des Barres introduction (Let's Spend the Night Together). Most of the link are of this nature.

Also, as editor of Arts & Opinion (www.artsandopinion.com), I was advised to contribute helpful articles in order to enhance A & O's chances of inclusion in wiki.

Sincerely,

Robert Lewis

I tried to discuss the Peru article (encouraged by Consulate of Peru - Montreal) with Victor12 but a blocked message appears. Could you indicate when I'll be unblocked? {{unblock|I have been waiting days for a response. So far nada. Could you please indicate when, if ever, I will be unblocked. Now that I understand the method, I will not enter links before submitting them as 'talk' pieces.}}

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): You seem to know the rules now. Stay safe, and have a quick read of WP:COI if you haven't already! Request handled by: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued advertisement

It seems that since the time of your unblock, all your edits have been to lobby for the inclusion of links to your website. Would you please consider another course of action, like contributing useful information to articles other than links to your site? If you need help understanding what is worth including, you might start by reading What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Article development.

Continued attempts to use Wikipedia to promote your website may result in your being blocked, which by now we would hope you understand. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the guidelines at WP:COI, the policies you point out mostly apply to articles, not talk pages. This user is being well behaved and I dont think deserves to be threatened with a block, especially after he was told this is the correct way to go about things. Russeasby (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below. I am familiar with these guidelines. You need not insist that within the letter of the law this behavior is acceptable. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm under the impression that as long as I use the talk option, it's ok to submit link suggestions. This understanding resulted in an 'unblock.' Secondly, how can I submit content without being accused of promoting Arts & Opinion. I'm a serious writer, an editor of a highly respected e-zine, several links have already been accepted by other wiki pages (groupie, envy, Martin Heidegger). How can I assure you that I am trying to promote content. Would you have me copy and paste material from my articles directly into wiki's content? 16:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Robert Lewis

Your link lobbying

Please see my comments at Talk:Palliative care#Link suggestion. Please stop. --CliffC (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I have seen, since being unblocked this user has abided by the guidelines set out in WP:COI, by restricting his suggestions to the talk page rather then editing articles directly himself. He is being polite and within policy. The links may never get added or used, but there is no reason to deny him the right to suggest their inclusion. So few COI editors come to be this well behaved, I applaud Artsandopinion. Russeasby (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On several Discussion pages Artsandopinion (talk · contribs) now continues to argue for his links after they have been rejected with reason. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] This is going beyond merely offering help. This aggressive lobbying does not help edit articles; it only serves to promote his site.

On Talk:Palliative care, he points to his link being used in other articles (his own edits, of course) as reason his site is notable enough to include in the Palliative care article.[7] Whether this violates the letter of any existing policy is beside the point. Artsandopinion has yet to make a single edit that does not promote his website. — edgarde — continues after insertion below

Which is why I asked if you would rather I copy/paste from my Arts & Opinion original what I regard as a positive edit to the wiki article? This would of course be proposed in the TALK forum. Could you please respond to this suggestion? Also it was highly unfair for you to have have removed 3 links, which the page editors had already accepted a week ago, re articles on groupie, envy and Martin Heidegger. Thanking you,

Artsandopinion (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Robert Lewis[reply]

This is a spammer. That he confines his behavior to spamming Discussion pages to avoid being banned does not make him anything other than a spammer. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not copy/paste material from another web site because this creates copyright problems. This should not be necessary anyway since most of the writing on your site is original research, which Wikipedia does not accept. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know what he is doing and dont disagree that he is spamming. He was already blocked for spamming and unblocked after being told he had to submit his contributions via talk pages. So he is doing what he was told he is supposed to do, seems a bit aggressive to then slap him for that too. If you disagree with his links being in articles (the ones I have seen I dont think they belong either, so I agree) then say so and move on, problem solved, if he keeps arguing for their inclusion, dont respond. He has a right to voice his opinion on what is suitable on talk pages even if its not a popular one, so long as he is being polite and respecting that he cant go put in the links himself unless there is consensus to their being appropriate.

My point is, he was told what he is supposed to do and he is abiding by that. You dont have to agree to the links and you dont have to keep arguing with him. I suspect after awhile he will go away when he realizes no one finds his links appropriate. I just think its wrong to tell someone the right way to go about something then turn around and say thats wrong too. Russeasby (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment... Artsandopinion, where you use "accepted" above in "...3 links, which the page editors had already accepted a week ago", the word "overlooked" might be more appropriate, since you were not yet proposing links on the talk pages at that time. --CliffC (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Martin Heidegger. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [8] / edg ☺ ☭ 16:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edg. George Steiner, cited in the Heidegger article, read and approved of the article I submitted. In your decision to reject it, it is painfully clear that you either ignored or didn't understand the content of the esssay. I am promoting the case for Heidegger. What does this have to do with SPAM, mass mailing? Artsandopinion (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Robert Lewis[reply]

LTNS

Welcome back. I hope you've had some time to re-think the External links campaign.

Considering the rocky start you had last time, perhaps you could benefit from WP:ADOPT. WP:ROPES also has good suggestions. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's clear that I am no longer fighting for the inclusion of Arts & Opinion in Wiki; but rather an entry for its editor. What next? Artsandopinion (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Robert Lewis[reply]

It's entirely optional, but you might add {{userpage}} to the top of User:Artsandopinion so it doesn't look like a faux article created for self-promotion.

After that, a writer such as Robert J. Lewis may be added by other Wikipedians if that writer reaches the threshold in Wikipedia:Notability (people), or perhaps Wikipedia:Notability (books) (in which the vanity press guideline is considered an indicator of non-notability). Despite its public visibility, published writing is not usually by itself notable, and most writing careers are at least a few years short of the level of recognition that would merit Wikipedia inclusion. Impatient types might consider whipping up quick notability via a manufactured controversy in the real world—if you choose this route, please don't tell anyone it was my idea. ;)

I'm not sure this interests you, but since you have writing skills, you might consider contributing to Wikipedia by editing articles in a topic of your choosing. Wikipedia's basic writing conventions are listed in Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset. {{Be bold}} / edg ☺ ☭ 12:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if my published writing doesn't meet the Wiki threshold, is this offset by the fact that I'm editor of an arguably distinguished (high profile contributors) e-zine? Secondly, have you already decided that Robert J. Lewis doesn't merit inclusion in wiki? And if yes, did you decide alone or by committee? Artsandopinion (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Robert Lewis[reply]

I apologize if that came off like a personal attack. My intention was only to point to some of the guidelines that would answer your question "What next?", which I presumed was a reference to your stated wish for a Robert J. Lewis article to be added to Wikipedia.

Notability can be established in various ways, so no one positive factor completely rules out an article's acceptance on Wikipedia. Only the lack of notability (or failure by other Wikipedia policies and guidelines) would genuinely fail to merit inclusion. The "vanity press" guideline is more of a rule of thumb.

Personally, canvassing, self-promotion and linkspam (which haven't been an issue with your edits this month) concern me more than the nuances of inclusion vis a vis Wikipedia:Notability (people), so the merits of a Wikipedia entry for Robert J. Lewis would probably be considered by Wikipedia editors other than myself. Good luck. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to submit the Robert J. Lewis article to Wiki editors for consideration, or must I do that? Artsandopinion (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)r.l.[reply]

I won't be doing this. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Does that mean you don't consider the entry fit for consideration and/or am I obliged to submit it for consideration? If the latter, how do I do that? Artsandopinion (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)r.l.[reply]

You are not obliged to submit it for consideration. However, I will not be adding this entry. If you want more suggestions, consider Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of User:Artsandopinion

A tag has been placed on User:Artsandopinion, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

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 [[ Talk:User:Artsandopinion|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed other film reviews were posed. Why is one legit and not another?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsandopinion (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Artsandopinion.com

Please stop linking your own writing from Wikipedia.[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] This has been explained to you repeatedly and at length in the past, but if you still do not understand, the recommended reading would be Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and in the case of your site, Self-published sources. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

It has been explained to you multiple times that adding links to your webpage without discussion is not appropriate. It is clear that you are only here to add links to a particular website. --Leivick (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I took the liberty of adding links to film reviews because the precedent of doing so has already been established. Why one review (someone else's) and not one of ours? (assuming contents equal). Secondly, without consultation with the page monitors who initially approved of the external links, you have recklessly removed links from the Millennium Summit and Longueuil. Both parties, in Montreal, with whom I am in personal contact, gave their blessings to the postings. I strongly suggest before you act so self-assuredly, you consult with the page caretakers before exercising your DELETE prerogatives. From my experience with you people, not unlike police and prison guards, you try to go as far as you can with your little dimes worth of power. Your mandate is to serve wiki, and beyond that, the people who consult wiki for information, which both the Millennium Summit and Longueuil links provide in spades. So the onus is you to explain how our 2008 report on the Millennium Summit fails to provide.

Decline reason:

It appears that you understood clearly that we don't link to our own web sites, and understood that you would be blocked for doing so. Given that you made a decision to continue linking to your own web site, it's hard for me to understand why you now object to being blocked- if you wanted not to be blocked, you had the opportunity to refrain from promoting your own web site. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:14, 16 December 2008 (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 disgree with your interpretation. In each and every case I can demonstrate enhancement of either the article or subject. Why haven't you responded to my queries concerning the deletion of the Millennium Summit link, an inclusion that was approved of by the Millennium Board of Directors. Would you have accepted the links if an independent 3rd party had submitted them? If the link provides information, article enhancement, why should you care who submits it? Explain?

Every day, thousands of people try to use Wikipedia to promote their own web sites. It's a serious problem. If it went unaddressed, Wikipedia would quickly become little more than a collection of links, many of them useless. How to deal with the problem? After much discussion, the community came up with the request that every user refrain from linking to her own web site. If a web site really is the best source of information, someone else will inevitably use it as a source for an article. It's a system that works very, very well. If you really are interested in making the encyclopedia better, you can do that by improving articles, and citing the best, most reliable sources for your information. If you're only interested in promoting your own web site, then you really are just a spammer, one of the thousands, and an indefinite block is the best thing for the encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed a sad day when you choose not to distinguish between spam and a genuine, well intended addition to wiki. Now that the rule has been clarified, I kindly ask you to perform an unblock with the promise that I will not abuse your indulgence.

Well, I'm not willing to. According to your block log, you've already been unblocked once on the condition that you agree to follow that rule in the future. You had a second chance and didn't choose to use it wisely, it seems like I would be foolish to assume that a third chance would turn out differently. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a life sentence?

This is an indefinite block. As you have been blocked before yet continued to use Wikipedia as a tool for self promotion, I don't see any reason to unblock at this time. --Leivick (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'If it be your will,' so be it. But let's be very clear here. In your judgment ONLY am I using wiki as a tool for self-promotion. If you were to ask the Board of Directors of the Millennium Summit if adding my link to their wiki article constitues self-promotion they would categorically answer NO, and demonstrate that the article in question is promoting their cause: to fight child poverty. A law, as well intended as it may be, cannot provide for every circumstance. Your decision is harsh, [Talibanesque] and unreasonable because reason has had no say. Is wiki confident enough, when called for, to relax principles apparently set in stone, to 'do the right thing?' And finally, can you connect me to the person who monitors the wiki Millennium Summit entry, so I can prevail on him/her to post the link. In restrospect, should I have posted/proposed the links in the User page?

This comment indicates that you think that the board of directors of the Millenium Summit (whatever that is) has some control over the Wikipedia article about their organization, but they don't have anything to do with it. In fact, we try hard to avoid conflicts of interest by not writing about ourselves or our own companies, or linking to our own web sites. There's no one person in charge of any article, either- all articles get edited by anyone who wants to edit them, so that we can keep our articles fair and neutral and avoid having articles that are written by their subjects. Is it possible that you've simply misunderstood what an encyclopedia is? It isn't a business directory or a promotional tool. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Artsandopinion. Thank you. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I asked David to post the articles. My thinking was that since I was accused of self promotion, someone else, who approved of the articles and their relevance, could (would be allowed) that as proxy. Since I now understand that even that is not permitted, could you lift the ban? But the rule doesn't address the possibility of that person deciding on his own to post for consideration the same articles? The way the rule is written, everyone who knows me (Arts and Opinion) or is associated with, is disqualified. Shouldn't the merit of the article be judged on its relevance to the encyclopedia, regardless of the submissioner?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsandopinion (talk • contribs) 20:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At your instructions, I attempted to report to the sock puppet link, but am not allowed in???— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsandopinion (talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we finally begin a constructive dialogue?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsandopinion (talk • contribs) 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. I'll let you begin. Artsandopinion (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)r.l.[reply]

You were blocked indefinitely for repeatedly adding links despite being asked (and blocked) to stop multiple times. Seeing as the last time you were unblocked you promised to only suggest links on talk pages, but continued to link to your website I don't see any reason to unblock. I'm not sure what kind of dialogue you would like to begin. --Leivick (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been chastened once. Promise to only suggest on 'talk pages.'

I am hesitant to unblock you considering that the last time you were unblocked you made the same promise. I get the impression that your only purpose here is to promote your own website. If you seriously wish to contribute beyond linking, than I would be happy to unblock on the condition that you not attempt to add links, either directly or through talk pages. If you are unblocked, these restrictions could conceivably be lifted if you are able to show through quality editing that you are not operating with a conflict of interest. Let me know what you think. --Leivick (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor of Arts & Opinion (www.artsandopinion.com), a highly respected e-zine. How about tailoring the punishment to fit the crime?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsandopinion (talk • contribs) 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The goal here is not to punish, but a more exactly-tailored solution would be to add your site to the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. Do you really think this is necessary? / edg ☺ ☭ 18:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request ban be lifted. Lessons learned. Thanking you. Robert Lewis Request #2: I request ban be lifted. Lessons learned. Thanking you. Robert Lewis

Artsandopinion (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)It's now Aug. 2010. Yet another request to lift the ban.[reply]

Artsandopinion (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)I would like to submit Arts & Opinion, an arts/culture/politics journal for listing consideration at wiki. www.artsandopinion.com[reply]

An indefinite block is not a punishment and it doesn't expire with time. It is intended to limit disruption to the project and thus if the disruption is likely to continue it wont be lifted. I think it is clear that your only purpose here is to promote your own publication. Wikipedia is not a promotional service. If you want a second opinion you can follow the unblock request instructions in the block message and another admin will review it. --Leivick (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Leivick. Let's try to work together on this together. As editor of A & O, it's only natural that I try to promote the journal. So on my behalf, since I can't access the site, could I ask you to submit the journal Arts & Opinion for entry consideration at wiki. We've been in the business for near 10 years, contributors list is distinguished?

I offered to unblock this account in 2009 if you agreed to refrain from self promotion. This offer still stands. Naturally you will want to promote your journal, but you can't do it here, either directly (as you have tried before being blocked) or indirectly (as you are now trying to do by getting me to submit your links). --Leivick (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol understood, even though I fail to see what difference it makes if you or a complete stranger submits Arts & Opinion for wiki consideration. As I understand it, an impartial committee decides either for or against inclusion based on merit. Am I wrong here? Artsandopinion (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any official committee who decides these things. Wikipedia works by consensus. People add links all the time without submitting them for any kind of review. The problem is when people's sole purpose here is to promote their own website or publication and they repeatedly add links despite neutral parties removing them. Do you accept the conditions I have purposed for an unblock? --Leivick (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the conditions and again apologize for past transgressions. Robert Lewis Artsandopinion (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry, I missed this response. A total oversight on my part. I am going to go ahead and unblock the account now on the condition that you not attempt to promote your e-zine or add external links either directly or indirectly. Once again I apologize for the massive delay. In the future if an editor isn't responding you have the option of emailing them using the "email user" tool. I'll send you an email this way as well as I don't imagine you have been checking regularly. Let me know if you need any help with anything here. --Daniel 23:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it doesn't look like you have Wikipedia email enabled. Hopefully you will check back at some point. --Daniel 23:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Lavery - Canadian author

John Lavery (1949-2011) is the author of two acclaimed story collections, Very Good Butter and You, Kwaznievski, You Piss Me Off and the novel Sandra Beck. Very Good Butter was a finalist for the Hugh MacLennan Prize for Fiction. Lavery has twice been a finalist in the annual Prism International fiction contest. His stories have appeared in This Magazine, Canadian Forum, the Ottawa Citizen, and the London Spectator, as well as in the Journey Prize Anthology. RLArtsandopinion (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are confident that Lavery is up to the standard of WP:AUTHOR—articles that fail Wikipedia's notability standards tend to get deleted—then your next stop should be Wikipedia:Your first article. Be sure to cite sources.

Thank you for contributing! / edg ☺ ☭ 15:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Lavery (1949-2011) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Lavery (1949-2011), a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission John Lavery (1949-2011)

Hello Artsandopinion. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled John Lavery (1949-2011).

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Lavery (1949-2011)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]