User talk:Clemson-burke1

This is Clemson-burke1's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Parlor Press (November 20)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please add references that show that the company has been the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable, independent publications.

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:Parlor Press and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Clemson-burke1, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Parlor Press concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Parlor Press, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. 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) 01:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Parlor Press

Hello, Clemson-burke1. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Parlor Press".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Parlor Press

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:Parlor Press requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.parlorpress.com/about. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "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 deleted 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. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 20:20, 23 May 2018 (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).

Clemson-burke1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I seriously do not understand why you people are all such complete jerks. I am trying to build a webpage here which is informational...I dont make any money from this...I am trying to put up informational data about a company which publishes academic journals...its not exactly ripping people off selling pot or selling Microsoft....you do not seen to have any actual conversations with people, its just threats, one after another...I started this page and then I was in a very serious traffic accident which almost killed and now I am trying to resurrect it...and frankly, some of your informational pages are not very easy to comprehend for someone who does not build boring web pages for a living...I dont intend for the damn thing to be public for a very long time anyways...Im just getting things up there to look at them...maybe someone could actually have a conversation with me about it rather than just being a, well, you knowClemson-burke1 (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Pro-tip: Calling the community jerks is not the secret to appealing a block. Especially after using Wikipedia for promotion. Stopped reading first sentence to decline. Sorry about your accident. Does not excuse promotional editing. See boilerplate. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2018 (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.

A word of advice - calling people "jerks" is not the best way to convince them that you can work constructively. [stwalkerster|talk] 23:33, 23 May 2018 (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).

Clemson-burke1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

can this entire page be deleted permanently? I may come back to this at a later date with a different approach where I meet guidelines ...i prefer to start anew at that point Clemson-burke1 (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. Please don't abuse the unblock process. Your draft page has been deleted. We can't delete this user talk page, though. Yamla (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2018 (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.

April 2021

UTRS decline

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information.ce As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2021 (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).

Clemson-burke1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The number 1 problem with the wikipedia page is that has been written by people with vested interests in one variation of the software application over the other. For instance, it mentions a software package called LUMIERA which has nothing to do with CINELERRA nor did it ever exist to today. That is a big problem. My effort was to correct errors I see on the page which has stayed there for years. Another more recent one is the indication of people behind CINELERRA-GG. Well, the only compiler and bug fixer of CINELERRA-GG was william Morrow who died last November. Yet, that is not notated. Also, it indicated Phylis Smith is listed as a developer. She does nothing but administrative work on CINELERRA-GG and never did any programming. Now, when I submitted my information I was providing accurate information on its history because I was there. The people who are writing on this page are quite the latecomers to the application, perhaps, you are one. That is fine. But, I am providing accurate information from a first hand account and not providing information because they are trying to diminish the Co-Founders work on Cinelerra who are Adam Williams and Michael Collins. To be entirely clear, I am Michael Collins. Also, I was denied because it was marketing data. Well, any words can be perceived that way including what I object to on this page and have so for years. WIt was said we are selling or marketing. Well, there has been no attempt to sell CINELERRA and that objection is moot since I have been helping to support development to the only real developer. Listen, multiple developers ont he project stole intellectual capital from us including Bill Morrow and Phyllis Smith so I am not trying to get into that can of worms, except to say I will try and toe the politically correct line of submitting data once you restore my contributions. But, again, I was there at the beginning. You werent and no one else writing on this page was either so it is humorous you do not want an actual witness, dont ya think? Clemson-burke1 (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblock provided. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:17, 24 April 2021 (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 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).

Clemson-burke1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My reasons is that I am trying to correct bias and nothing I wrote before was untrue. As I said, I will make a sincere attempt at being less of a pendant (Pendant - A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, and precision, or one who makes an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning). But, in reality I understand the information much better than anyone on this page who is currently making submissions including the wiki editors. So, again, where exactly is it that you do not want someone who knows the data better than you nor anyone else there who is using it for their own promotional reasons? I am willing to present my truths for review and if they are deemed unworthy then we can go forward and discuss it. But, to toss aside my response as if it was trash is unseemly at best since I most people have no similar accomplishments in life such as CINELERRA. So, it means something to me. The people in the Cinelerra community is a very small group and there is a lot of jealousy against the two Co-Founders and Developers of Cinelerra. As I said, I will try hard to make things clearer and more succinct and to address the style of the Wikipage more carefully. and ask questions. But, this page is so bad it is laughable and makes us look bad and makes Wikipedia bad. For instance, please explain why LUMIERE is listed on this page? It has nothing to do with the developer of Cinelerra nor does it even exist as a project. Its presence does nothing more than burnish the images of someone who thinks it should be there. > Clemson-burke1 (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There are still no grounds to be unblocked here. I am declining your request, and since your requests have been unproductive, I have decided to remove your talk page access to prevent more timewasting by all. If you are able to address the reasons for the block adequately, you may use WP:UTRS for further appeals. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2021 (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.

.