User talk:Dove.Leesa

Welcome!

Hello, Dove.Leesa, 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 Messianic jewish theological institute, 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! Theroadislong (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Messianic jewish theological institute

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 Messianic jewish theological institute 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 a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.mjti.org/about. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed 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 modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines 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 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. Theroadislong (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Elena Taube Bailey

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 Elena Taube Bailey 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 person or group of people, but it 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 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. Brycehughes (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Elena Taube Bailey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elena Taube Bailey 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/Elena Taube Bailey 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 notice from the top of the article. Brycehughes (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Elena Taube Bailey Wedding at the Washington National Cathedral, 2014.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Elena Taube Bailey Wedding at the Washington National Cathedral, 2014.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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 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. Majora (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dove.Leesa, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:35, 20 December 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

IP address are usually and commonly shared with other users in Wi-Fi or business. This is because, while one might use different computers or devices, they all use the same Internet connection. User AlexEng's comments do not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, of Sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry did not occur and new users interested in a particular article should not be punished by "experienced" users...that is clique'ish' and bullying behavior.

Decline reason:

One unblock request at a time, please. We have both behavioural and technical evidence establishing sockpuppetry. Note that the technical evidence is more than just a shared IP address, though given the behavioural evidence, a shared IP address would be sufficient in this case to establish WP:MEAT. In your other unblock request, you bring up behaviour from Exemplo347. This is completely irrelevant. You weren't blocked by that user. If you wish to have another admin review this block, I advise you read WP:GAPB first. In particular, though not limited to, WP:NOTTHEM. Yamla (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2016 (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.

Dove.Leesa (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1= Also, there is evidence of anti-religion and anti-Semitic comments and biases/ignorance by user: Tomwsulcer. For example, noting that the significant roll in the (Jewish-Christian) religious movement is not notable (that is completely anti-Semitic or the user does not know anything about religious movements) and that Jews for Jesus is not a reputable site (this is also anti-Semitic/anti-Jewish because it is one of the leading reputable movements in Jewish Christianity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_Jesus)); Also, user Exemplo347 engages in bullying behavior on the article talk page, additionally user Exemplo347 has used their experience with Wikipedia to bully and present falls Sockpuppet claims on new user(s); Lastly, the fact that new users are not allowed to comment on the most recent article, and the REMOVAL of their comments, is bullying behavior and goes against the spirit of Wiki where new users have every right to support articles that they choose to support. Preventing this has caused clique and bullying behavior from older user against new users! Preventing new users to post on the recent article also sways the discussion in the "talk" section, making it severely biased to the point where it appears a coalition is building against new users who support the article that the old users do not. The request is to unblock the legitimate users and un-restrict edits to the recent article. Failure to unblock and permit edits to the recent article will show that older editors in Wiki bully, engage in clique behavior, fall into bias and group think when they restrict comments to new fresh users, and can voice anti-Semitic comments without allowing new users to respond to those anti-Semitic comments while administrators permit this behavior}}Dove.Leesa (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dove.Leesa (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Elena Taube Bailey article highlights subject's notable work in creating the first Jewish-Christian wedding/marriage to take place in the historic Washington National Cathedral in Washington D.C. initiated by the sole Evangelical Jewish Rev. and Rabbi, Ken Howard (Episcopal priest) in the Washington Metropolitan Area; First Jewish-Christian woman to be in senior position in the US intelligence and Federal Government who had previously worked for the Israeli and Ukrainian governments. Dove.Leesa (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Taube Bailey article highlights subject's notable work in creating the first Jewish-Christian wedding/marriage to take place in the historic Washington National Cathedral in Washington D.C. initiated by the sole Evangelical Jewish Rev. and Rabbi, Ken Howard (Episcopal priest) in the Washington Metropolitan Area; First Jewish woman to be in senior position in the US intelligence and Federal Government who had previously worked for the Israeli and Ukrainian governments. Dove.Leesa (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC) = Elena Taube Bailey article highlights subject's notable work in creating the first Jewish-Christian wedding/marriage to take place in the historic Washington National Cathedral in Washington D.C. initiated by the sole Evangelical Jewish Rev. and Rabbi, Ken Howard (Episcopal priest) in the Washington Metropolitan Area; First Jewish-Christian woman to be in senior position in the US intelligence and Federal Government who had previously worked for the Israeli and Ukrainian governments. Dove.Leesa (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am a new user who found finding all the Wiki policies difficult to locate, but this block is no longer necessary and I kindly request to be unblocked, because I have attentively read the policies and guidelines that an administrator (user: Yamla) sent me and I now more clearly understand what I was blocked for, and it will Not happen again. My goal is to provide positive contributions

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:59, 20 December 2016 (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.

.

--jpgordon, You only highlighted the original reason why the block was placed. You are not explaining why my request for removal of the block is rejected. This is a first time I was blocked, I'm a new user, and am trying to make things right. There is no reason for retaliation against me. According to Wiki "One common requirement for unblocking is simply 'do you understand that what you did was inappropriate for this site, and confirm that you won't do it again'. I don't understand why you are retaliating against a new user who is trying set things right. Dove.Leesa (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am asking to be ublocked. This is a first time I was blocked, I'm a new user, and am trying to make things right. There is no reason for retaliation against me. According to Wiki "One common requirement for unblocking is simply 'do you understand that what you did was inappropriate for this site, and confirm that you won't do it again'. I have confirmed that I won't do it again.

Decline reason:

Above you claimed that no sockpuppetry had occurred because the same IP address was insufficient proof. I expect editors who "try to make things right" to not lie about their conduct. Or was that also something that you needed to read policies for? Or that votestacking would not be appreciated? This is not some innocent mistake by a new editor but a purposeful campaign of deception. At the very least there's massive meatpuppetry going on, and there's no indication that it would stop. Huon (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2016 (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.

Dove.Leesa (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming you are not the same person as User:EllenDove? That would be such an odd coincidence, two editors on the same IPs named "Dove", both writing about Ellen Taube (which of course means Dove.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the reviewing admin, this user has removed these comments about the block from AlexEng (talk · contribs) relevant to the block. Assuming good faith, this may have been a mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to censor commentary directly relevant to sockpuppetry. --Yamla (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear --jpgordon, my comment above noted that I understand that the Original reason for me being blocked was for allegedly "sockpuppetry." After receiving this notice and the policy guide and guidance from admin. I had filed a request to be unblocked, explaining and noting that this was the first and only time I was blocked, I'm a new user, and am trying to make things right. There is no reason for retaliation against me. According to Wiki "One common requirement for unblocking is simply 'do you understand that what you did was inappropriate for this site, and confirm that you won't do it again'. EllenDove was the original account that was created and then Abandoned within a day or two, you can easily see that once the new account was created, EllenDove was No Longer posting and hasn't posted since. This was not done to create "sockpuppetry", just a different username was more clear. Thank you. Dove.Leesa (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mm hm. And what about User:Pettya, who appears to have been created for the purpose of double voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elena Taube Bailey? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--jpgordon, That is a legitimate other author who supports the article. You don't have to believe me. I'm not going to argue fact. I'm sure others in the nation will post something similar to my article even if I remain blocked. I can contribute well to Wiki, but if I remain blocked, I can contribute well to other efforts. It is unjust for Wiki, editors and admin. to Retaliate though. What I realized as a new user, is that new articles seem to gain new users because there are groups of people throughout the country who are interested in the article and want to get involved. It's not because they are "asked" to get involved, but that they know there is the opportunity now due to a new article. This doesn't make their postings any less valuable or legitimate. If anything it mitigates group-think and cliques. Dove.Leesa (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User has continued to engage in block evasion, as 173.66.61.40 (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla User did Not engage in block evasion.

Huon The only ones engaging in meatpuppetry is you, Yamla , AlexEng,, and others with old Wiki accounts. It's a swarm of sharks attacking new users who supported an article. If any of you were observant, you'd notice this...everyone I showed this communication thread to commented how clique, biased, and hypocritical people in this talk page are as they themselves have engaged and are engaging in meatpuppetry on this talk page.

Proposed deletion of File:Elena Taube Bailey photo for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.jpg

The file File:Elena Taube Bailey photo for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

reason for proposed deletion

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Elena Taube Bailey photo for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.jpg

The file File:Elena Taube Bailey photo for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

the page was deleted and the photo no longer needed

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]