User talk:Corinne.L.Clark

Hello, Corinne.L.Clark, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Welcome to Wikipedia... hope you can stop by and check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Corinne.L.Clark, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Hi, I've twice reverted additions you've made of an apparently non-existent category. Perhaps I've missed something, otherwise continuing to add non-existent links may be seen as test edits or vandalism. Thank you, JNW (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JNW (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Foreign Influence on US Presidential Election, 2012 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Foreign Influence on US Presidential Election, 2012 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign Influence on US Presidential Election, 2012 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JNW (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012, redux

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. JNW (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bluman v. Federal Election Commission

Hello Corinne.L.Clark,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, may be copied from http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bluman-v-federal-election-commission/. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Bluman v. Federal Election Commission

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bluman-v-federal-election-commission/. As a copyright violation, Bluman v. Federal Election Commission appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Bluman v. Federal Election Commission has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Bluman v. Federal Election Commission and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Bluman v. Federal Election Commission with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Bluman v. Federal Election Commission.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. JNW (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin noticeboard

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I've attempted to engage discussion here numerous times. JNW (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I thought I had replied. This page is a work in progress. I ask that you please allow me to finish before deleting my work. (Corinne.L.Clark (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

A final warning

Dear Corinne,

If you don't start discussing the article with the editors who have been deleting your work, you are going to find yourself blocked from Wikipedia very soon. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Editors who refuse to work well with others are not permitted to be here. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a work in progress - while some editors are very eager to delete my work I ask that they please allow me to finish before doing so. (Corinne.L.Clark (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

What everyone has been trying to tell you is that the article is not being considered for deletion because it is incomplete. It is being considered because what is currently written does not meet Wikipedia's standards, no matter how it may be added to or reworded. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if they would allow me to finish this page it would meet the requirements - while editors are ethusiastically deleting everything I write i am attempting to source and format. (Corinne.L.Clark (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Let me also pile onto the warnings. This was not about your article being underdeveloped, this was about your article being blatantly biased and disparaging. There was literally no part of that article that was acceptable for this encyclopedia. In other words, had you, in good faith, wanted to convert it into a suitable Wikipedia article, it would require a total rewrite. As such, the copy of the article in your sandbox has been deleted as well. Right now, though, it appears that your only purpose is to insert POV into Wikipedia, and we're being quite generous by not blocking you outright. But any continued behavior of this type will almost certainly result in an indefinite block. Swarm ^X 07:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the ANI discussion, but would add that Swarm is completely correct in every statement here. We are not here to publish fringe conspiracy theories, original research or drag people's names into the mud. We are an encyclopedia. I would strongly suggest Corinne read the WP:Five pillars and familiarize themselves with the goals of Wikipedia before attempting to create any new articles. Recreating articles like the previously deleted version will likely be seen as a form of disruption and result in the editor being blocked for an indefinite period of time. As editors, we must always be focused on presenting neutral information that is covered by reliable sources, not theories loosely strung together by personal interpretations of events. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing - re-creating in your sandbox after the final warnings above a page already deleted as partisan/attack. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2012 (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).

Corinne.L.Clark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was under the impression the sandbox was a TRIAL place to edit pages, I am working on a rewrite - I didn't post this page back up. This seems like I am being unreasonably targeted. The accusation that the page was inflammatory is completely a biased opinion not based in fact. Corinne.L.Clark (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

sandbox pages are in fact places to work on material not ready for article space. However, they are still hosted by Wikipedia and therefore some of our content policies still apply. Specifically material that attacks or defames someone or copyright violations are absolutely prohibited regardless of where they are posted. This website is not here for political advocacy of any kind, be it conservative, liberal, fascist, communist, anarchist, whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2012 How's this page inflammatory?? There is no negative character assumptions of either candidate! (Corinne.L.Clark (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

(UTC)

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.