User talk:Borntodeal

June 2015

Your recent editing history at Kathy Ireland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalize the page. Kindly take the matter to dispute resolution or the Talk page. Borntodeal (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Borntodeal reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This editing dispute has become harassment as defined by Wikipedia since you are engaging in the use of multiple accounts and it's become oppressive and mean-spirited. I'm asking you to step away from deleting and engage in a meaningful discussion or formal resolution mediation.

Borntodeal (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think User:NeilN is using multiple accounts? Your behavior is getting attention at multiple noticeboards at this point, which is attracting others like me. FYI I am not NeilN. — Brianhe (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brianhe I am not here to be noticed but if you do, it's okay. What is not okay is anyone simply removing hours of research and work in a click. Not okay. And it's violating the harassment policy. I am being Wikihounded and Threatened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment Borntodeal (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't reply to my question which is: why did you tell an admin "you are engaging in the use of multiple accounts". — Brianhe (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nature and timing of the deletions are consistent with a cooperation of accounts in my humble opinion. Sudden, similar deletions of entire sections of content. Borntodeal (talk)

So basically you're attesting that User:Winner 42 (Wikipedia:Million Award), User:MarnetteD (10 yr ed), User:Onel5969, and User:Paul Erik (admin) are all socks of admin NeilN? You should open an SPI if you have solid evidence of this. Or if you don't, maybe you shouldn't say it. — Brianhe (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Kathy Ireland. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have added content to Wikipedia in good faith with verifiable sources. I have been singled out and I believe this is a violation of Wikipedia's harassment policy. I believe that I have been singled out in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit my work. I was harassed by use of threats of blocking for attempting to preserve my contributions to Wikipedia and that these actions are a disruption of my work on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

The policy is very simple: no edit warring, even if you're right. And please concentrate on your own actions. Max Semenik (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2015 (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.

But please do tell us about your work. How are you being inhibited?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a paid editor and an indefinite block placed by User:Berean Hunter does not seem reasonable. I have never been blocked in the 9 years I have been posting here. I have been especially careful to post well-researched and neutral, valuable content and an indefinite block by User:Berean Hunter does not seem appropriate.

Decline reason:

Bullshit. Talk page access revoked. MER-C 07:18, 24 June 2015 (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 see you skipped my request to tell us about your work. No matter, I have now indefinitely blocked you as an undisclosed paid editor which violates Wikipedia's Terms of Use.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Berean Hunter I am not a paid editor on Wikipedia and I do not know how to identify you as someone who actually works for Wikipedia. I therefore did not skip the response, I merely did not identify you as a person to whom I am required to answer to. "Individuals and organizations who make a good faith effort to edit according to the following procedures will not be in violation of this policy."

I believe that an indefinite block is not just. Failing to answer your question, resulting in an indefinite block seems incompatible with the spirit of Wikipedia to me.

I would like to therefore seek input from another person in management since (1) I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia and (2) I have made substantial and positive contributions to pages here.

Your actions seem punitive. Borntodeal (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions seem unethical. Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyering isn't going to work. No one writes this unless they are engaged in paid editing. You wanted to skip responding because you didn't feel required to...that has been part of the problem here. You've dodged the question long enough. I do not work for WMF but I am an admin. I suggest that you modify your unblock request since it no longer addresses the current reason why you have been blocked. Any reviewing admin will not only see your 3RR violation but also the COIN listing.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Berean Hunter you are making false statements and I do not appreciate them. You have drawn conclusions that are false. Adhering to the https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy Privacy Policy, I find that your approach to engaging with me is beyond the scope of administrative management and is becoming personal and does not appear to follow the WMF's tenants as I am reading them. I would also like to make contributions without being flamed or attacked. Borntodeal (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What has this got to do with the privacy policy? And no, it is not personal; you were reported on two different noticeboards and I have never edited the articles that you edit and we have never crossed paths to my recollection. The one who seems to be accusing others is you. Whatever playbook, flowchart or meatpuppet that is advising you won't work here.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Berean Hunter I am finding the way you're addressing me very offensive and inappropriate. I believe in good faith that every statement I made about vanquishing my posts are truthful. And I restate that I have never been paid to post on Wikipedia and I find your skepticism and assumptions biased and not appropriate for someone representing an administrative job for the Foundation.

Borntodeal (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you find doesn't really matter. I'll leave this for other administrators to review.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:The Sterling Winters Company

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 Draft:The Sterling Winters Company, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 05:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winner 42 you should take note that I previously asked the page to be deleted since the approving admin said it needed improving. I had no issue at all with the page being deleted until I was able to develop it to a point where it would be solid. I do not understand the sudden interest in posting this now when I already agreed to its deletion. Borntodeal (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]