User talk:BrekekekexKoaxKoax

Welcome to the oasis from the cut-and-thrust world of Wikipedia that is the User talk page of one BrekekekexKoaxKoax. Not once has this editor seen so much as an edit of his reverted, less so ever been accused of 'POV', much less so has he ever been blocked. If you would like to post here, perhaps you should verify this at the archive, otherwise just enjoy the pastoral idyll while you can, and admire my favourite genetically-modified pets, aren't they just great? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:GloFish.jpg

A group of GloFish fluorescent fish

/Archive 1

Proper use of "See also" sections

I noticed this and was disappointed you have apparently not learned from your recent block. "See also" sections are not the place to sneak in a POV, especially on a BLP article. Could you instead seek approval in talk before any further additions of this type? Thanks. --John (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danke, Mein Arbiter. Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen! La, la, la, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now recognize this as an ill-considered response to User:John's, and would like to delete, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: the above edit. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your lack of common decency in the comment above is appalling. Do you think this snide reference to the anthem of the Nazi party (Horst-Wessel-Lied) would go unnoticed? While John should not and would not block you for this personal attack on him, I'm glad another administrator has. Go find a blog in which to spew such nonsense. Leave Wikipedia alone and in peace. --S. Rich (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, see below. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's abundantly clear from your sarcastic responses of the last few days that you have no interest in adhering to our policies no matter how many times they are explained to you. With the backhanded nazi accusation implied in your last remark on top of that, I think you need an extended break from Wikipedia, so I have given you one. You don't have to agree with policies, but we are all expected to abide by them, and you have shown nothing but contempt for WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, two of our most important content policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beeblebrox, please post this on my behalf to the Government Accountability Office article, since it's an edit I'm in the middle of writing and am unable to post myself. Thank you for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Would you also care to specify what part of the edit User:John discovered (although I note from his user talk page that when asked to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia a few minutes before by another editor he said he was rather busy in real life...) warrants a 3 month block (sic). I note none of you are uninvolved. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, and no again. You went into this with your eyes wide open, having had it repeatedly explained to you by about five different people, including at least three statements that if you continued as you had been you would be blocked for much longer. I will not proxy for you as you are blocked, meaning your edits are not welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

3 month block for 'violation of BLP'; if necessary, I'm happy to avoid editing BLP articles for 3 months, since maybe I don't quite yet get the difference between hagiography and NPOV, although it's not quite clear what aspect of this necessitates a 3 month block, unless this is getting (very) personal. In the meantime, please could someone post on my behalf the above edit, underway but currently incompleteable, to the Government Accountability Office article and also follow up my requests on the government agency and company infobox template discussion pages, where I understand my advocacy of inclusion of the independent auditors' audit opinion makes me guilty of WP:Sock. Would like to request permission to edit non BLP articles only for the next three months. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your quoting of the first line of the Horst Wessell song as you do is a clear accusation of Naziism, and as such is absolutely unacceptable here. And you have been warned before about your behavour. I think that a block of only three months is generous. And furthermore no-one is going to act as a proxy in posting the edit above. Apart from any other consideration, acting as a proxy of a blocked editor is itself a potentially blockable offence.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:00, 27 January 2011 (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.

'tis but a ditty, lighten up dude. I requested an unblock in relation to a 'violation of BLP'. I suggested compromise measures if necessary. Your response does not relate to the request but to an edit I made on my own user talk page. It is irrelevant to the 'violation of BLP' block in question. Also, you are not uninvolved. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I used the BLP block template but as can be seen from my remarks directly below it is not the sole reason for the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this conspiracy? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A representative non-BLP edit, to 2010 United States federal budget: BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another representative non-BLP edit, to United States Department of Defense: BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC) (also the United States Department of Homeland Security, since removed from here)[reply]

Articles created recently: Top 100 US Federal Contractors, Twitter subpoena, Kearney & Company. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for three months for 'violation of BLP' for this. Previous request declined as above without reference to BLP 'violation' in question, by a non-uninvolved 'administrator'. Requesting rights to edit at least non-BLP articles for next three months, with some representative non-BLP edits provided above for reference if needed in support. Many thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Quit the WikiLawyering already. Considering your past career, this is reason enough for a very long block. Favonian (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2011 (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.

Question

The large article sections on this talk page make it difficult to read, and aren't necessary. No one is going to edit on your behalf; editing on behalf of a blocked user is against the rules. Would you like me to remove the article sections so your talk page is easier to follow? Or would you prefer to do it yourself? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the kind offer, and nice to hear from you again, but this is my user talk page and I would these representative edits to remain. Thank you, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Please note: I tried to collapse some of it, and was reverted.[1] I tried to explain yet again what the problems are and was reverted [2] again. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)</>[reply]

Sorry, edit confict error in second case (and again just now, grr), did you not remove content in first? Please feel free to cut and past my user talk page as you like. By the way, is this conspiracy? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to you is extremely exasperating and I'm pretty much done with it, but collapsing a post is not the same as removing it. It was done in the interest of making it easier to see your unblock requests. I also removed mainspace categories as they are not appropriate for a user page. No, there is no conspiracy. Accusing others of engaging in a conspiracy is the last resort of those who cannot or will not admit to their own errors. Your compromise ignores what I have tried to explain several times, that you make problematic edits to non-blp articles, and that you have attacked another editor. To pretend the "tune" you added is objectionable because it is discordant and not because it isd an accusation of nazism is the kind of obfuscation I have rapidly come to expect from you. I now regret that I did not simply block you indefinitely, but I'm sure someone will get around to it eventually if you can't desist in acting as you have. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brek, this video reminds me of you -- please enjoy :) ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgpiN9i45XM My point is that you are persisting in bashing your head against a wall, when there is really no right way to do it. (Please stop.) Consider this -- what were you doing in September-October-November 2010 before you launched into editing Wikipedia? At this point you can easily go back to that activity as an older and wiser person who has learned (and contributed) at lot. Come back to the WP community in April or May ready to go with constructive and collaborative contributions. Wikipedia will not go away while you work on your articles. More importantly, you can reflect upon you own attitudes during this time (happiness is an attitude, not a condition) and how they impact your interactions with the world. Best wishes. --S. Rich (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)23:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:SRich - thank you for this friendly advice, the video clip was indeed well chosen, and thank you also for your other recent contribution. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(To make things clear, User:BrekekekexKoaxKoax pasted the following quoted material from part of an earlier message which I (S. Rich) had posted above in the "Proper use of "See also" sections".--S. Rich (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)) "Go find a blog in which to spew such nonsense. Leave Wikipedia alone and in peace. --S. Rich (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)" What and leave the Bradley Manning article in your hands? :))BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for three months for 'violation of BLP' for this. I have suggested the compromise measure of edit rights to non-BLP articles only if there is indeed any concern. Two unblock requests have been rejected, neither with reference to 'violation of BLP' edit in question, and first also by a non-uninvolved 'administrator'. (Both upheld 'BLP violation' block (sic) due to a line of poetry set to song posted, seemingly without due sagacity, on my own user talk page. Am happy to remove said line from my own user talk page if the tune seems discordant to some ears.)

Decline reason:

The simple fact that you just falsely signed another user's name to your own comment is enough to get your block made permanent. But instead, I'm just going to remove your privilege to edit this page for the duration of your block. You've wasted enough volunteers' time already. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:53, 27 January 2011 (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.

User:Jpgordon - thank you for letting me 'babble again' after the intercession on my behalf of another administrator; I am sorry you did not feel my personal email (please could you now delete it) saying the same was itself sufficient grounds for self-revert. Perhaps you could comment here that you did not AGF, did not read the comments posted above before thinking fit to block an appeal, and simply sided with several other administrators thus continuing to pervert the process, something along those lines. In the light of the above, I find the fact that, from your user space, you appear to pride yourself re your contributions to Wikipedia primarily on the basis of how many users you block (and pages delete) somewhat disconcerting. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is pretty nasty. I've removed the fake signature above, so that it will not reflect badly on the user who did not leave that message. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was my signature from when I posted warning about his/her allusion to Nazism. User Brek moved it to the point above in rresponse to my friendly advice. I've restored my signature. --S. Rich (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:FisherQueen - you blocked my appeal a couple of days ago; I see here you once again failed to AGF - or even read the comments posted before thinking fit to weigh in against another user, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may appeal this block to the Arbitration Committee by email as detailed at WP:BASC if you still wish to be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the arbitration committee has better things to do than waste its 'volunteers' time', per Jpgordon, on such matters, and I do not wish to bother them; hopefully this can be resolved locally, with edit block lifted and appropriate alternative sanctions imposed. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

As per above, I have been blocked for three months for 'violation of BLP' for this. I have suggested the compromise measure of edit rights to non-BLP articles only if there is indeed any concern. Three unblock requests have been rejected, the first two without reference to 'violation of BLP' edit in question, (both upheld 'BLP violation' block (sic) due to a line of poetry set to song posted, seemingly without due sagacity, on my own user talk page. Am happy to remove said line from my own user talk page if the tune seems discordant to some ears), the last after an egregious indisputable failure to AGF. Would also like to note potential instances of questionable process observed below (including discussion of blocks of other users offline). Particularly wish to be allowed to contribute as I see the article Authenticity of Art is currently being proposed for deletion; I am a trained wall painting conservator who has worked on a number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites, have a particularly keen interest in the authenticity of art, and would like to contribute to the AfD point, not by weighing in and saying the new article as it stands is somewhat lacking, but by spending a few minutes improving such an incontestably significant article by googling/using reference works ready to hand. Request for edit block to be lifted, with appropriate alternative sanctions imposed for above ill-considered response to trolling, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've revoked your talk page access (again) since it seems you have no intention of making a proper unblock request and can't or won't accept the reason for your block, despite the advice of numerous admins above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 28 January 2011 (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.

Questionable Process

I have been blocked twice in the past three or four days, the first time without so much as a prior warning for this, when the questionable (though WP:RSed, and in fact a highly polyvalent postmodern literary figure) see also had already been reverted by another user and I had made no attempt to repeat it (for what it's worth I'm not necessarily anti-Manning, although this is what User:Beeblebrox hastily assumed in blocking my appeal. Please see this diff for alternative, more constructive ways of reaching consensus over points of disagreement rather than blocking or threatening blocks.) Clearly my immediate response to User:John's repeated reference to blocks after this was ill-considered and questionable, and I repeat my offer to retract if this does not look like shredding the evidence (in innocence, a la Blair). Again, I made no attempt to revert after my wording had already been improved by another administrator, with some useful and constructive suggestions on how best to contribute made via edit summaries by the same administrator. I note that User:John neither AGFed nor consulted me prior to apparently blocking a new user account creation on the hunch that it was me seeking to evade the ban. I have shown throughout my month and a half of editing of Wikipedia a constant readiness to engage in discussion whenever requested, and that might have prevented a further perpetration of injustice by an over-hasty administrator who seemingly does not always know how or choose to go about his task in the most constructive manner. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP policies re coercive measures against other users: Due to necessity I have now been obliged to acquaint myself of these points, all quotes: (1) Disruptive behaviour can be reported, and blocks requested if appropriate, at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents [seemingly no ANI report in either case] (2) As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a block that may be controversial, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review. [seemingly no ANI report in either case, with a warning when I suggested it] (3) Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Provocation of a new or inexperienced user by an experienced and sophisticated user is especially inappropriate. [poor little me has only been here a handful of weeks; plastering my Usertalk with POV Manning issues etc appears quite sophisticated, since adjudicating administrators openly refer to previous comments rather than judging the quiddities of each appeal] (4) While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards: incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations; [48 hrs for first disputed block, described by another administrator as 'a mess of a process'; 2160 hrs for the second disputed block] (5) [bans are for] Maximizing the quality of the encyclopedia [have suggested a compromise measure of no contribs to BLP articles for duration, if this is in anyway a valid concern, but now feel that in fact restriction to discussion pages would be more appropriate (this necessitated by Administrator:SlimVirgin's work on Manning article after my block, which saw my links to the relevant law code removed, links to Lady Gaga songs added, comments by US Department of State, NATO delegates, and John Pilger which I had added entirely removed, even from footnotes, while adding in detail about Tom Dyer, James Ridgeway, and Jean Casella which I had sought to remove, with the edit summaries including 'this adds unnecessary detail, removes other detail, adds unneeded links' (these edits by Administrator:SlimVirgin were praised by another administrator, who had previously given the same Administrator a barnstar for his contribution to the article, as 'skillful' and 'elegant').] (6) [refers to] blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view [I believe all mine are very well-referenced] etc (can elaborate if desired).

I also note that administrators thinking fit to judge others should be 'uninvolved', which I understand mean to be fully independent, without personal ties with other administrators, or personal involvement in an article. Other than User:John, the administrators who have voiced their support for the blocks (other than those I had encountered on other articles) are the following:

(1) Administrator:Beeblebrox - describes me as 'extremely exasperating', and blocked me this time after rejecting a block appeal a couple of days before. (2) Administrator:Anthony Bradbury - rejected my appeal above after rejecting my appeal a couple of days before. (3) Administrator:Bwilkins - discusses blocks offline with Administrator:Anthony Bradbury. (4) Administrator:FisherQueen - openly professes not to be able to understand what I'm saying, and as above shows no attempt to AGF, yet still thinks fit to reject an appeal. (5) Administrator:Favonian - not uninvolved as close nexus with other administrators above, including at least three communications on same day as my block. (6) Administrator:Ultraexactzz - did me a favour my upholding previous block as otherwise I would have spent another 25 hrs bleating in vain rather than considering how to improve. (7) Administrator:Jpgordon - invalid arbitary decision in disregard of AGF as per above.

Some recent communication traceable on Wikipedia below (although I see that administrators also discuss blocks offline amongst themselves). Do I understand from this that some administrators appear to find it conducive to fair process to discuss blocks between themselves rather than approaching each fresh, uninfluenced by other administrators thus 'uninvolved', and with an open mind, assessing each case on its own merits?

(2)&(3) Administrator:Anthony Bradbury & Administrator:Bwilkins - discuss blocked users offline, eg 1 (5) Administrator:Favonian - on same day as my block, 1, 2 3, haven't bothered to dig further, happy to do so if necessary

Re Administrator:Anthony Bradbury and this, I see from the WP:Guide to appealing blocks 'Admit to it. All your contributions to Wikipedia are logged. There is no point in denying something that you did do, because your edits can and will be checked.' Does such transparency only apply to users in danger of a block, not to administrators administrating blocks? I do not know whether another administrator would like to raise this issue on ANI - since I am unable to, and there may initially appear to be a conflict of interest in me so doing anyway.

Requesting permission to spend time improving Wikipedia, with appropriate sanctions, rather than researching the above, necessitated by the 3 month block without compromise measures. Many thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I am not an administrator. I merely have Reviewer & Rollback capacities, which enables me to perform some routine clean-up edits with additional tools. (These capacities are usually used to combat WP:VANDAL.) I have no special privileges or authority. --S. Rich (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple admins are telling you you're doing something wrong, the stuff you're doing is what you should be focused on, not the stuff others are doing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But would like a block lift...

You could create a separate section here with some intended article changes or additions, to demonstrate good faith in what you would do if unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please take note that the discussion of possibly problematic editors between admins offline is quite reasonable. And that there is nothing in my posting, referred to above. to suggest to which editor I was referring. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? Please refer to transparency, accountability, Common sense, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could ask you to self-report to ANI as this might be considered a mitigating factor, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your writing has much improved since your block. Thank you for taking my advice and communicating in good, clear English. That reflects well on you. I can understand you now, and so can others. Assuming good faith does not mean that we must allow people to break rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of belabouring a point that, perhaps, does not need further elaboration, I point out that the e-mail which has given you such concern, about a blocked user, was generated by me in mid-December. You were not then blocked, so it can not have referred to you. And the comment contained could have been, as far as is known to the community at large, either positive or negative. Or possibly merely seeking information. Or passing information on. Or anything. You have no argument here in relation to your present situation. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes

At the point of my block I was half way through researching and updating the Government Accountability Office article. I asked User:Beeblebrox to post this on my behalf since the block meant I was unable to; apparently though wishing to do so to improve Wikipedia, he was unfortunately prevented by certain policies (?involving proxies?). Mine is still the last edit so rather than working out how far I'd got I'll post the work underway I had posted above. Will be seeking to improve this, discuss whether legal code (inc UCMJ Art 10 totally missing) might be more usefully included in Manning article than Lady Gaga's telephone, write a new article on an Afghan charity, vote for User:Smartse as an administrator, and update authenticity of art article with bibliography and points below (in an attempt to save it from deletion as currently proposed). Will add more this weekend, thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breke, please stop copying entire, or even sections of, articles into talk pages. A personal sandbox is the place for that to be done. Merely copying helps no one as to examining the nature of your changes. You have your own sandbox, so use it. --HXL 's Roundtable, and Record 16:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He can't use his sandbox; he's blocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Top 100 US Federal Contractors - FY 2009 (March 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by StraussInTheHouse was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please see WP:NOTSTATS.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Top 100 US Federal Contractors - FY 2009 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Top 100 US Federal Contractors - FY 2009, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SITH (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BrekekekexKoaxKoax! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SITH (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Top 100 US Federal Contractors - FY 2009

Hello, BrekekekexKoaxKoax. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Top 100 US Federal Contractors - FY 2009".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 08:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]