User talk:Drjonesesq

At this point I would like to appeal to the high panel for a real look at this rent my vacation home USA[edit]

The references submitted meet all criteria and the work is not an ad of any kind Drjonesesq (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Drjonesesq/sandbox (October 20)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Drjonesesq/sandbox.
To edit the submission, 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. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point the references are now all hardback books and the deletion now requires to be reinstated with the new references thank you Drjonesesq Drjonesesq (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Easy to see the site is corrupt please ban me and my students. Your in deep with competitors wonder how much money they donated. Make sure and hurry to delete and suppress information from the public so you control what everyone will read. This is a embarrassment as a encyclopedia and you should be ashamed as this is nothing more than a place to advertise you proved that. Did not even check the hardback books please ban me you run a site so corrupt and I will post this all over the net you will see you cant silence me you bully. You cant even wait for the appeal can you. In 3 weeks I will start to post what you have done in all media formats so be careful when you try to silence voices for profit..Drjonesesq (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2013 That is not correct that it did not pass, it passed look at the history and comments. Are you now saying something new to prevent the article some other way now that the references are there. I want this situation appeal to the high panel .[reply]

Drjonesesq (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I would like to appeal to the high panel for a real look at this. This was accepted then declined after 4 days then I got into it and found real hardback references since the other 106 were turned down for PR reasons. Now we have hardback independent books listed with numbers and still a hard way to go. This is absurd, lascivious and a public embarrassment as this is not the Wikipedia way. : Drjonesesq (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not that person but I did talk with them and do not agree with they way the students were treated. Drjonesesq (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

look at the page for admin no answer yet? Please restore the work done and get on with our lives. Thanks alsoDrjonesesq (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is why we must go to a higher level. Does that scare you ! please look at this high panel before he deletes everything again.Drjonesesq (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Drjonesesq! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I would like to appeal to the high panel for a real look at this rent my vacation home USA[edit]

The references submitted meet all criteria and the work is not an ad of any kind Drjonesesq (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Drjonesesq (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong idea

Having reviewed your request at WP:REFUND, I have to say that you're going about that the wrong way. First, you suggest you litigation - that's the quickest way to become indefinitely blocked from this private website. Second, you suggest that there are "other motives in place" - that's the most ridiculous thing on the face of the planet: admins apply the rules and policies, and most certainly do not have "other motives". Your absolute WP:BATTLE mentality is wrong - you're refusing to read the simplest of inclusion criteria, and aggressively attacking people who work hard to keep this encyclopedia (note: not business directory) a place of knowledge ES &L 11:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having now gone and reviewed the deleted content of your sandbox, I have to say I'm not sure that you understand the notability requirements for businesses - I wonder if you actually work for the company, as it was clearly an advertisement for the business, not an encyclopedia article about any type of notable business. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise - and editors may NOT edit article where they have conflict of interest. ES &L 11:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a false causations of my character and the article was excepted and published. Now that references were found that meet criteria you say I work there and it is a ad ? is that right and is that slander.Drjonesesq (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets start over the article was already published so it is not an ad of any kind.
The company is large the largest vacation rental network in the USA and your argument is made of straw.
I ask what is wrong with the books used and look at home away same style of article Drjonesesq (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is now based on fact and the article must be restored as requested in the best interest of the Wikipedia and reliability of knowledge expected by its users. In conclusion restore the article.Drjonesesq (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you failed to read WP:NLT. I suggest you start with that, and retract your apparent legal threat on WP:REFUND, and stop throwing words like "slander" around when you clearly do not understand what the word means. Your draft article has never been "accepted" - an advertisement is never in the best interest of Wikipedia. Take a moment to remove the chip off your shoulder, stop acting like this is a WP:BATTLE and start listening to someone who is a) trying to prevent you from being blocked, and b) trying to guide you. Really, it's your choice, but right now your block from this project is imminent. Note: the blue links are links to policy and guidelines - they're not optional, so read them ES &L 13:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox article is not the article it was deleted. The one published was done by someone else and then redone by me with different references please see history of RENT MY VAACTION HOME USA Drjonesesq (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am not going to address the comments that were not researched above about "not being accepted" and will also not respond to insults like this one posted above " "slander" around when you clearly do not understand what the word means" Did you need to say that ? sounds real bad for a forum like this. Drjonesesq (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mention having looked into the article's history, but fail to mention that it was deleted after an Articles for Deletion discussion a couple of weeks ago - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rent My Vacation Home USA. Weirdly enough, the only editor arguing for the article's being kept also talked about unspecified hidden motives of all the editors arguing for deletion. In any case, when an article is deleted by consensus, it cannot be simply recreated. If there are new facts or references, bring that up with the deleting administrator, TParis, and please temember to assume good faith. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 14:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point the references are now all hardback books and the deletion now requires to be reinstated with the new references thank you Drjonesesq (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point: it is not "required" to be reinstated, because it still did not pass our minimum requirements for inclusion. ES &L 16:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true check the log that is made up by you for some reason check APERSON or apperson who approved it the first time. Drjonesesq (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it was subsequently deleted after a discussion, which is the relevant point. Thank you for confirming that you are in fact the same person as the editor who first created the article. Please stick to one user account. Thank you. --21:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I do know the students who did the work and they were not treated with respect for the work they did. Drjonesesq (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant discussion was about not having hard references from books. Try not to comment on discussions that you have not read. This one was about hard book references and not the side show you try to make it out to be. Lets stick to the point and here are the references. I have other commitments and will chat later please do not delete everything. Drjonesesq (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Please allow me to repeat the advice given above: When an article is deleted after an Articles for deletion discussion, and you want to have it restored, the first step for you is to bring up any new information and references with the deleting administrator. They won't be reading your talk page. Ask them on their talk page. Please remember to be specific about why and how the article you want to create differs from the one that was deleted. --bonadea contributions talk 07:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I would like to appeal to the high panel for a real look at this rent my vacation home USA

We Posted on deleting admin as well. Drjonesesq (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been provided with an explanation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rent My Vacation Home USA, and again at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. That's our 'highest panel'.

This is the world's #7 website and we, the voluntary editing community decide, according to our policies, what may be published here. Our equally voluntary administrators simply evaluate the consensus in the deletion debates or appeals, and if the outcome is to delete, they have access to the technical tool for deletion. Probably nobody here knows your RENT MY VACATION HOME USA; furthermore, many of us are nowhere near the USA and probably have never even been there, so there is hardly any agenda in preventing the publication of the article in Wikipedia other than that it does not meet our criteria for inclusion as you have been repeatedly advised.

If you continue in this tone, you are almost certainly going to be blocked from editing or creating articles here, and access to your talk page and other departments will be revoked - and please note that I have the technical tools to do that too, and it won't necessarily need a community debate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is why we must go to a higher level. Does that scare you ! please look at this high panel before he deletes everything again.Drjonesesq (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What higher level? The community (i.e. AFD) is the highest level. There is no bureaucracy here. Look - you have been given rather clear orders on what was wrong, and how to fix it. Instead of doing that, you're arguing a point that unfortunately cannot be won. Nothing in your replacement was "approved" - some passing editor may have "accepted" something, but that does not mean automatic inclusion of the article. Wikipedia is not rocket science, and this stubborn aspect of your personality is not becoming ES &L 09:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]