User talk:ConAngel2000

Welcome!

Hello, ConAngel2000, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Grand Jury Award, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ABCDEFAD _✉ 21:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Grand Jury Award

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 Grand Jury Award requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. ABCDEFAD _✉ 21:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drumpf

You can stop adding this now. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Richard III of England ‎ , but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

ConAngel2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This was not part of a continued campaign, and I was reacting to another person editing far worse into the page of Michael Eric Dyson. I respectfully request to be unblocked and will not continue to do edit maliciously on the biographies of living people.

Accept reason:

As you have agreed to a ban from editing BLPs, I will remove the block. You may appeal this sanction no earlier than 6 months from today. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ConAngel2000 (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think to unblock you, I'd want your agreement to a complete ban on editing biographies of living people. Is that acceptable? PhilKnight (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Wouldn’t that be the same as just keeping me blocked? ConAngel2000 (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are hundreds of thousands of articles to edit that aren't biographies of living people. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would I still be able to start biographies of living people? I began the pages for Lee Carter, and I’ve contributed largely to living people’s biographies in constructive ways. I personally do not believe it is reasonable to ban me from this particular area. ConAngel2000 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unlikely you will find an admin that will unblock you without you agreeing to what PhilKnight proposes, for at least some significant period of time. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I have no choice then. I agree ConAngel2000 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI you should click "edit" instead of "new section" to avoid creating unnecessary headers. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Does this mean I am unblocked yet? ConAngel2000

Done. Please see the message above. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say before, but in six months you can appeal the sanction to WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, ConAngel2000 just created an article on a BLP (Emerican Johnson a youtuber under the name Noncomplete who I tagged for CSD due to A7 issues). I also reminded ConAngel of their BLP ban so it's your call. JC7V-talk 22:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello. Your recent edit to St. Joseph, Michigan appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of NonCompete

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 NonCompete requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. JC7V-talk 22:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Sorry for the CSD, don't feel discouraged, keep editing about subjects you like. If Emerican Johnson becomes notable for inclusion in the future, you can create the article then. For more see WP:YFA. We're glad you're here. JC7V-talk 22:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ConAngel2000, You've also violated your ban on editing BLPs. JC7V-talk 22:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of PeterCoffin

The article PeterCoffin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication this guy passes any notability guideline.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t currently defend maintaining the page due to my block.

November 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at St. Joseph, Michigan. You mislinked to an article that you created in open defiance of your topic ban. Sorry, that's not gonna fly. Blocking admin notified. John from Idegon (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of John M. Sternhagen

The article John M. Sternhagen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced since creation

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. John from Idegon (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

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 ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you have created two BLPs despite your agreement not to above, I have reimposed the block. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear

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).

ConAngel2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So I am not allowed to create BLPs? I asked this before when negotiating my unbanning before, and I didn’t get a clear answer, so I was not aware this was a part of it. I wasn’t “thumbing my nose” at the ban, as you may believe. I did not know that was part of my ban, so it wasn’t malicious. I believe this particular part of the ban is overreaching to my ability as an editor, while deletion of incorrect pages would be better if anything. ConAngel2000 (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Most of the pages I have created or helped start have been of living people, and I have never done so maliciously or with intent to defame or slander an individual. I must also include the fact that this ban began by my removing of graffiti from a BLP (Michael Eric Dyson) and that person should receive the same block or worse, if they haven’t already, for doing far more damage than myself. If I am blocked from editing BLPs, then I will accept that, but if I am blocked from creating new ones, that is essentially a censor of my position as an editor, which I cannot abide by. Did I make a mistake that I regret? Yes. Do I believe the punishment is equivalent to my act? No, and I would hope you understand. ConAngel2000 (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; this has been open for a month and no administrator has seen fit to unblock. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:01, 11 December 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.

This request will be reviewed by someone else. Creating an article by definition requires you to edit it. Thus, if you are under a "complete ban" as PhilKnight proposed, you can't edit BLPs; that includes creating them. If you no longer agree to a ban on editing BLPs, you should say so. 331dot (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want to come off as aggressive or unreasonable, but knowing now what the “complete ban” entails, I believe is far overreaching what my original crime was. I could wrong and this could be a completely normal punishment for such a thing, but it does not seem it, with all due respect. That being said, if this is par for the course, I have no choice but agree to it, as I said before.

I would suggest that if another administrator does see fit to unblock, the TBAN should be "BLP, broadly construed". Which would mean making any edit regarding a living person in any article. Nevermind the ridiculous argument that he didn't realize article creation was editing, the articles he created showed a complete disregard for WP:BLP. John from Idegon (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can call it a ridiculous argument, but I genuinely didn’t realize that creating a new page out of whole cloth was the same thing as editing preexisting pages. I’m sorry for going against the guidelines while not knowing what they were. I’ve never come across blocking on Wikipedia, can you really blame me for not knowing everything that it entailed? I am being completely serious, regardless of what you may think of me.