User talk:Dr.apricot

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Dr.apricot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk: The Bushranger

I noticed that you posted a note on this admin's user talk page. I just thought I would let you know that he seems to have been inactive since 27 March 2011, so you may not get a quick answer. - Ahunt (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Showstopper Lifestyle

Hello Dr.apricot,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Showstopper Lifestyle for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Trivialist (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article for deletion because there is no explanation of why the book is notable (see Wikipedia:Notability (books)). I didn't say anything about it being self-published; that comment on the talk page was made by another user. Trivialist (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query about your editing

Are you editing on behalf of the people you edit about? And are you paid for editing, or paid for any work which your Wikipedia editing could be considered as related to? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Who are you? I read your bio at @User:JamesBWatson, but it sounds fake to me, Dr. Watson. Who are you really?

(b) Does my work seem professional to you, because if it does, then perhaps I should do professional writing instead of my chosen career?

(c) Are you with the thought police?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.apricot (talk • contribs)

User:JamesBWatson is referring to the requirements spelled out at WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the clarification. Are you also with the thought police? Dr.apricot (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than accusing people of things you might want to read WP:CIVIL. - Ahunt (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good rules to live by. You might want to take a look in the mirror. Dr.apricot (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:@Ahunt, please stop deleting huge portions of my article and quoting Wikipedia policies at me that don't apply. You, sir, are a vandal. Dr.apricot (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt - send me a PM before deleting my content again. Let's discuss, since you claim you are acting in a civil manner, and want to recommend that for me. Dr.apricot (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I am formally warning you here for uncivil behaviour. These sort of accusations can get you blocked from editing. As I noted on the article talk page it is not your article, see WP:OWN, anyone can edit it. You content is uncited and can thus be removed at any time. It also seems to be original research and is very promotional in nature which is why the admin above wanted to know your relationship to the subject. If you are the author of this book or working for him or his publisher you need to declare that conflict of interest and stopping editing the article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you what seems to me to be a perfectly civil question. Instead of answering that question, you posted nonsense about "thought police" and so on. You ask who I am: for present purposes, all that is relevant is that I am a Wikipedia administrator. Your editing looks to me very much like use of Wikipedia for advertising, which prompted me to wonder if you were being paid to do so, so I asked you. For some reason you chose not to answer. Undisclosed paid editing is a breach of Wikipedia's terms of use, and if discovered can lead to being banned from editing. I did not say that to you, because I thought doing so might seem like a threat, so instead I just asked you whether you were being paid in relation to your editing. That gave you an opportunity to disclose your paid editing if that was the case, or to clear up my doubt about it if it was not.
Please take note of the following facts.

Wikipedia policy is that editors should be civil in their interactions. You have a history of incivility and disparagement of editors with whom you disagree.
Wikipedia policy is that using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion of any sort is unacceptable. (This applies whether paid or unpaid: posting laudatory content about something because you personally like it and think it deserves to be better known is as unacceptable as posting similar content for personal financial gain.)
As I have already said, undisclosed paid editing is contrary to Wikipedia's terms of service.
As a Wikipedia administrator, I am tasked with ensuring that editing conforms to Wikipedia's polices, guidelines, and terms of service.

I ask you again to state whether or not you are being paid, or have ever been paid, in relation to editing Wikipedia, either specifically for editing of Wikipedia or for work which might be regarded as related to that editing. (For example, someone who is paid to promote something and does so in part or in whole by posting about it on Wikipedia would be a paid editor, even if the terms of the contract did not explicitly state that Wikipedia should be used.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No pay for this book review, or for anything else. Dr.apricot (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please stop edit warring to get your own way on Showstopper Lifestyle‎ and discuss changes instead. - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fine. I don't want further conflict, and have better things to do. How about answering some of the questions I raised such as the problem you see with the four (4) references that I cited to nationwide syndicated television shows which speicifically interview Valentio about his book? Why are these not acceptable citations? Thank you. Dr.apricot (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Showstopper Lifestyle

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Showstopper Lifestyle, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ahunt (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa

To all those who worked on the Showstopper Article (now deleted), I apologize for getting hot under the collar about it. I felt the aritcle was good, and belonged somewhere--but, perhaps just not in Wikipedia. If this subject matter and book were in fact of sufficient merit to have a Wikipedia entry, then I must have failed to present it in such a way that it could could have been retained. On the other hand, if it never had any such potential, then it was certainly my mistake for ever bringing it forward.

I wish you all peace, happiness and a great holiday season. There are certainly no hard feelings whatsoever, at least for me. Happy trails! Dr.apricot (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]