User talk:Harry W Braun III
move these beginning-editor-mistakes out of the way...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(unspecified template title)[edit] If you can indicate why the page is not blatant advertising, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ( Harry W Braun III, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure![edit]
The
Adventure
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]
-- 13:43, Friday, August 14, 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]
-- 18:15, Friday, August 14, 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]
-- 20:19, Friday, August 14, 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:Harry W Braun III[edit]A tag has been placed on User:Harry W Braun III requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Harry Braun, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 2016 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and 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. 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. Westroopnerd (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Nomination of Harry Braun, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 2016 for deletion[edit] The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Braun, Democratic Presidential Candidate, 2016 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. Peridon (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC) August 2015[edit]
Managing a conflict of interest[edit]
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible. If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of User:Harry W Braun III[edit]A tag has been placed on User:Harry W Braun III requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harry Braun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constitutional conventions. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC) |
August 2015
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Harry W. Braun III, please stop promoting your candidacy on Wikipedia. You have created both a userpage and a Wikipedia article about yourself. But you and your candidacy do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion here, which you can find at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. In order to qualify for an article here, you and your candidacy must be reported on by independent reliable sources (major newspapers count as independent reliable sources; Facebook does not). Good luck with your campaign, but Wikipedia is not a place where you can promote it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I believe MelanieN is incorrect here: you in fact *do* seem to meet WP:42, in the article about Harry Braun. See sources listed here.[1] That said, although your 2016 candidacy has WP:NotJustYet generated enough press-coverage for a dedicated article, certainly your 1984 and 1986 congressional campaigns generated enough coverage to properly write the Harry Braun#Political_campaigns subsection. I also found some wiki-reliable sources for the 2004 and 2012 campaigns, plus various scientific papers (and popular coverage in the media of the ideas therein), which all help contribute towards WP:42. But about the self-promotional editing bit, MelanieN is 100% correct; you have to let the amateurs do the writing, whilst you give suggestions, and help with providing WP:SOURCES. More on that below. In particular, you must not attempt to treat wikipedia as a vehicle for advocacy, either in favor of your campaign, or in favor of your ideas; that is verboten by the wiki-policies. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The new article
[edit]Hello, Mr. Braun! I was confused by your note on my talk page, where you said that you have removed all references to your campaign from your article and made it just about your scientific work. I was puzzled because the article Harry Braun is still about your presidential campaign. I looked into the histories, and apparently what happened is that you created a brand new article, Harry W. Braun III, IN ADDITION to the existing Harry Braun article about your campaign. But we can't have two articles on the same subject, so somebody redirected the new article to Harry Braun.
If you really want the "scientific" version to be the main and only article, I can restore what you wrote there, and make the Harry Braun article into a redirect. Or I can copy-paste what you wrote there (which still exists, you can see it under "view history" at the top of the article) into the article Harry Braun, replacing the "presidential version" with the "scientific version". For that matter you can do either of these things yourself, they do not require administrator tools.
A more serious question is about a new user called User:HBraun2016 who made some minor edits to the article Harry Braun. Is that you, under a different username? --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hello MelanieN. Thank you so much for your message. I could not figure out what happened to my most recent Article, but if you could please replace the political version that offended many editors, with the non-political scientific version I would be most grateful. I have no idea of who User:HBraun2016 is, but it is not me. Thank you again for your assistance, and any suggestions you may have are always very much appreciated.Harry W Braun III (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I would not agree with just replacing the older article with the new version, because the new version is not an improvement. It contains too much unrelated material. I already removed some of the stuff from the current article, like the section about hydrogen history, so just putting it back is not fair. My removal of that content was justified. This article is supposed to be a biography of Harry Braun, other topics can go in other relevant articles.
Just because the article is about you doesn't mean that you can use it to write about things that you think are important, that is not what the purpose of Wikipedia is. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Jeraphine Gryphon: That's a good point. I agree that the new article as he wrote it is more of an essay than a biographical article. A lot of it is unreferenced, which at Wikipedia is called original research and is not allowed. And in its own way it is just as promotional (i.e., promoting his ideas) as the original. How about this: Let's leave it in the history for now, and I'll link to it at the AfD discussion and ask if anybody finds it more acceptable than the current "presidential candidate" version. I suspect they will not, and for the same reason: there is no evidence that outside, independent sources have taken significant notice of his scientific work, any more than they have taken notice of his presidential campaign.
- Mr. Braun, you still don't understand what our objection is to you having an article here. The "promotional" objection that you keep talking about is not the main issue; promotional talk can be fixed by editing. The problem is that you, the subject of the article, do not meet the criteria set out at WP:GNG. There is simply NOT significant coverage about you from WP:independent WP:reliable sources, and without it, no amount of rewriting is going to save the article. But I'll ask the community what they think, at the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- P.S. Jeraphine, thanks for the reminder about this being a biography article; I have been neglecting my duty as a Wikipedian, by letting this remain as a political platform statement or a scientific advocacy paper. I have added some required biographical detail. As for trimming the advocacy, I think we can mostly wait and let the AfD process take care of that. The discussion will be closed next Tuesday, unless someone snow-closes it before that. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Candidate for president, or for the Democratic nomination?
[edit]Mr. Braun, a question about your campaign: Are you campaigning to be the Democratic nominee for president? Or are you running for president, identifying yourself as a Democrat, but running outside of the party process, say as an independent or a write-in? The reason I ask is that I assumed it was the first, and I modified the first sentence of your article to say "campaigning for the Democratic nomination", but if that is incorrect I will change it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Melanie, I am indeed running for president in the Democratic Primary. Harry W Braun III (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC) belatedly copied here to this page, from User_talk:MelanieN
history of affiliated corporations
[edit]- Another question: Is your company called Mesa Wind LLC, or Sustainable Partners LLC, or what? I found both in biographical information about you, but I couldn't find a website or other online information for Mesa Wind, and Sustainable Partners LLC looks like a different business.[2] --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Mesa Wind LLC is my company, which was the original developer of a $150 million, 120 MW, San Juan Mesa Wind project in New Mexico that was completed in 2005, at which point the controlling interest was sold to Edison Mission Energy, which provides Mesa Wind with a royalty for the commercial life of the project. Sustainable Partners International was a separate publications company in Phoenix Arizona that included myself and three other individuals: Pete Dixon and John Olson, who were printing specialists, and Lucy Hays who was a proof reader. However,
SPISPIntl (preferred to avoid confusion with wiki-jargon WP:SPI) is no longer active.Harry W Braun III (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC) belatedly copied here to this page, from User_talk:MelanieN, plus changed acronym and inserted wikilinks retroactively
- Mesa Wind LLC is my company, which was the original developer of a $150 million, 120 MW, San Juan Mesa Wind project in New Mexico that was completed in 2005, at which point the controlling interest was sold to Edison Mission Energy, which provides Mesa Wind with a royalty for the commercial life of the project. Sustainable Partners International was a separate publications company in Phoenix Arizona that included myself and three other individuals: Pete Dixon and John Olson, who were printing specialists, and Lucy Hays who was a proof reader. However,
- I believe that both did exist, Mesa Wind LLC founded in 2002 in Arizona, with some relationship to the San Juan wind project in NM, and Sustainable Partners 'officially' founded (re-founded?) in 2005 also in Arizona, although Sustainable Partners have some mentions much earlier (e.g. in the 2000 publication of that's year version of the Phoenix Project book). Harry lives in Georgia now, so it is unclear what the current status of these startups is.
- Harry, can you fill us in on the legal entities, whether corporations or (c)(3) type entities, that have been used over the years? And in particular, give a one-sentence summary of the purpose to which they were put, and especially, note when something was repurposed. Are you using some of your energy-commercialization-corporations-and-foundations, for your presidential campaigns of 2012 and 2016, for instance? Sometimes it is hard to figure out the twisty maze of legal companies, especially when gratis-access databases of corporate details don't exist. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hello @MelanieN:. I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. Mesa Wind LLC was established in 2002 in Arizona as a wind development firm that was the original developer of the 120 megawatt ($150 million) San Juan Mesa Wind project that was built on top of a mesa near Elida, NM. Mesa Wind will continue to receive bi-annual royalty payments for as long as the project is operational on the land that is leased from the property owner: Mr Pat Boone[3] (not the singer).
- Sustainable Partners LLC was established in the 1990s as a publications and production company by myself and 3 other individuals to produced both the 360-page Phoenix Project book, which was indexed with over 140 citations, as well as a video documentary that is based on the book that has now been published on YouTube and the ScienceNewsNetwork.US website. However, Sustainable Partners is now focused on the research and development of wind-powered indoor food production systems. Please let me know if you have any additional questions.Harry W Braun III (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Technical note on talkpages, when you reply, insert an additional colon beyond the number of colons the person you are replying to used, in front of each of your own paragraphs. Melanie used one colon, 75.108 used two colons, so your reply should use three colons for *both* of your paragraphs (not one colon for your first paragraph and zero colons for your second). Wikipedia is still using 2001-era website technology, in some ways. It is extremely flexible, but also takes a bit of "manual labor" to get the comments organized. One of the ways that wikipedia is flexible, is it allows you to edit Other People's Comments. Now, this is often considered extremely rude (just like putting your hand into Other People's Wallets you are not likely to enjoy the results... even if you only intended to help them organize their currency rather than swipe it from them). Per WP:IAR, and to teach you about talkpage-colons and wikilinks, I've just edited *your* comment, above. If you are gravely offended, that I would dare modify your comment, you can undo my changes, by clicking 'view history' and then clicking undo, of course. Often, though, as with other things on wikipedia, rather than just undoing what I have done, it is considered polite to ask me to undo it myself, which in the wiki-jargon used around here is called a self-revert. In any case, no offense intended, and I've tried to use the various kinds of wikilink-ing styles that you may need, for future suggestions-for-improvments that you might put forward on the article-talkpages. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
When you get *tired* of adding yet another colon, there is a magic-wiki-word that you can type. Here are the helpdocs for this wiki-template, as they are called: {{outdent}}. You can see how I used it, by clicking 'edit' on this talkpage-section, but basically, when you are in editing-mode, you type curlycurly outdent curlycurly, and then after you click save, the nice graphical outdenting-icon appears where that magic-template-thing was saved. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
open questions
[edit]- So, some questions. In the form of a bulleted-list, which (just like other 'paragraphs' in replies) needs to have each bullet-point preceded by the correct number of colons, so everything lines up. I will leave a 75.108 signature after each of the bullet-pointed questions, so that you can reply to them individually, if you like. Technical note, your replies should have either two-colons-plus-an-asterisk, or alternatively, three-colons-plus-zero-asterisks, depending on whether or not you wish your replies to be bullet-adorned. Thanks for your assistance, talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- #1. one of the WP:ABOUTSELF websites I read, explained that SPIntl was the majority shareholder in MesaWind, so that the 2002 company was effectively a spinoff of the existing parent-corporation, is this correct? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- #2. there are four Phoenix-Project publications (that I am aware of), the 1990 book published by Renewable Partners, the 2000 expansion-and-rewrite published by SPIntl, the 2003 version for the conference in DC, and the 2008 version for the peer-reviewed journal. Can you give us the brief overview, of the various publishers and editors and such, that were involved with each of the versions? We don't need names and addresses and phone numbers, that stuff is usually NOT revealed on wikipedia about living humans, but in general can you tell us whether the 1990 publisher was also one of your corporations, or if not, who (generally and without specifics) was behind the 1990 work. Same questions for the 2003 and 2008 versions. It will also help if you give us a couple sentences about the differences in content/thrust of the various versions, for instance I know that the 2000 version had about 50% more pages than the 1990 version, but I don't know if this was "new material" aka additional chapters about topics that were not covered in the 1990 edition, or if it was "revised and expanded" material aka the additional pages were deeper explanations of the same concepts that the 1990 version already covered, or possibly both new & expanded. Same question for 2003, was it basically just a slightly-revised version of the 2000 work, or was it significantly distinct? Same question for the 2008 paper, was it a boiled-down summary of the 2000/2003 work, or was it a narrowly-focused technical paper on a specific chapter of those, or was it basically a new work that attacked the problem from a different angle, the purely-scientific view rather than the somewhat-popularized view? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- #3. while we are on the question of historical efforts, can you fill us in on your activities from 1971 through your first congressional campaign in 1984? Since there is not press-coverage of those years, they would not necessarily be mentioned in the Harry Braun article, understand, but we do have the one press-clipping from 1982 discussing your early work with investigating the health-aspects of indoor lighting. Were you doing mostly photobiology in those days, or were you involved in the 1970s solar power efforts? The 1973 oil crisis happened, when gasoline-rationing kinda-sorta went into effect, and there was a solar power boomlet. Mostly this is just a curiousity-on-usertalk-question, and you need not answer it if you prefer, and in fact, per WP:CHOICE you need not answer *any* questions, if you are perhaps busy with other things. Wikipedia has a lot of rules, but the only non-negotiable rules are WP:CHOICE, WP:NORUSH, and WP:NPOV. You are free to conduct your off-wiki affairs, without worrying about questions from wikipedia editors, in other words. There is no rush (see WP:NORUSH), and it is 100% your choice as to when and whether and how specifically you wish to contribute to wikipedia (see WP:CHOICE). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- #4. So as I understand it, Mesa Wind LLC was operationally-active from 2002 through 2xxx, and is now still actively drawing royalty payments, but at this time is not seeking new business, nor necessarily developing new projects? Or is it more the case, that Mesa Wind LLC *is* still quasi-active, as an ongoing corporate entity in the free market, but the nature of potential upcoming projects are partially dependent on further R&D work, and on accumulation of capital? There is also the third possibility, that Mesa Wind LLC is still fully active, and that you have moved to Georgia, but the company remained behind under other local executives (or equivalently that the company moved with you). Anyways, this is basically a past-tense-present-tense question: wikipedia should not mention Mesa Wind LLC, except as covered in the WP:SOURCES, but we have some passing mentions of the firm, so the question is, should it be described in the present tense ("Mesa Wind LLC is a company...") or in the past tense ("Mesa Wind LLC was a company...") in the wikipedia-sentence about the firm? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- #5. Same question, about SPIntl, is it a present-tense company? At one point you said it was no longer active, but may have been talking about active-in-the-publishing-field, because you also said something about ongoing wind-powered-indoor-food-production being worked on by SPIntl. There is at least one source which says SPIntl (but maybe I'm confused with S.P.LLC below?) was founded in 2005, but there is also a source which says SPIntl was the publisher of the 2000 version of the Phoenix Project. Presumably the company was re-incorporated in 2005, and had earlier been headquartered in another state? Or perhaps, prior to 2005, SPIntl was in the nature of a doing business as entity, which was in fact backed either by PPF the nonprofit, or possibly by yourself as a sole proprietor? Wikipedia can literally just state what we know, which is that SPIntl was established sometime "in the 1990s" per your usertalk note above, and that SPIntl was the publisher behind the 2000 version of your book, and also that it was incorporated in 2005, but I like to get the historical dates and details straight, when possible. :-) Having the topic of the article available, is often very helpful, because often they know the true answers off the top of their head, whereas without taking a real-life trip to Arizona for interviews, it would be shockingly difficult for me to unravel the legal-entity-history of SPIntl on my own. So, thanks for being available, it will definitely improve the encyclopediaTM if we can get these factoids hammered out into a consistent biographical chronology, subject as always to WP:NORUSH and WP:CHOICE. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- #6. Melanie located a firm called "Sustainable Partners LLC" , at the website http://spart-llc.com/contact/ , which is based in Michigan, and sells anaerobic digesters for production of CNG fuel and/or for electricity co-gen. I'm assuming that this is NOT the same as "Sustainable Partners Inc" which is/was headquartered in Arizona? Is there, or was there, a website (or perhaps just a webpage inside the PPF domain name or something), for SPIntl? Same question for Mesa Wind, did it have a webpage or website of some kind, at one point anyways? There are various archiving-and-caching services that might still have information on defunct websites, for instance, I've been reading about h2pac thataway, but it's hard to search the archives for 2003-era websites unless I know the URL that I'm searching for, hence the question about whether Mesa Wind and/or SPIntl have webpages of some kind. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have more questions, but I expect that the answers to the ones above, will allow me to fill in most of the details myself. Appreciate your time spent on this effort Harry, thanks, and talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- #7. I have been trying to figure out the history of the San Juan Mesa windfarm (SJMW). As of their 2013 bankruptcy-filing (not related to the SJMW project specifically which is a tiny portion of their overall operations), the Edison Mission Group listed several subsidiary-entities for that operation: EMG#1 San Juan Mesa Wind Project LLC, EMG#2 San Juan Mesa Investments LLC, EMG#3 San Juan Energy Company.[4] EMG officially took over operations of the SJMW facility as of December 23, 2005 from the construction-firm that was brought in during May-to-Dec-2005 to actually erect the towers and install the turbines, www.padoma.com aka Padoma Wind Power LLC. Both of those firms are from California, and were brought in as a sort of buyout partner, as I understand things. In other words, my question is, once the SJMW project was designed and ready, from 2002 through 2004, by your startup-company Mesa Wind LLC, then the larger firm was brought on board? I'm finding plenty of sources about the project *after* construction was started, but relatively few details about the pre-summer-2005 history of the project. Can you fill me in on what happened, from circa-2000 when you decided to start working on wind as a more cost-effective technology than solar thermal, through 2005 when Padoma and EMG took over operations-responsibility for the SJMW? Specifically, I'm trying to figure out which groups, got involved at what points in the process, and where Mesa Wind LLC generally (plus Harry Braun specifically) were involved, and to what degree. Other names that have been mentioned in sources, as being involved with the project circa-early-2005-but-maybe-not-before-then: "The balance of plant work was subcontracted by
Padoma to a joint venture between The Industrial Company and Power Engineers Inc". Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
howdy
[edit]Harry, welcome to wikipedia. I trust you've been enjoying your oh-so-friendly WP:NICE reception so far. ;-)
I've added a long comment to the deletion-page about your 2016 campaign, which lists the WP:SOURCES about you that I could find. In particular, you will note that I listed zero sources (that I could tell at least) from your own website, and zero sources from social media (facebook/youtube/blogs/similar), and generally speaking zero sources that were written by you... with the special exception of your cited and peer-reviewed scientific papers, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
To help User:Peridon and User:MelanieN out, the best way that you can proceed is to concentrate on digging up sources for them. In particular, the sources must be specifically ABOUT YOU and/or specifically ABOUT YOUR CANDIDACY. That means that, just because "hydrogen" is mentioned, or "solar" is mentioned, or "presidency" is mentioned... none of those things are enough, when trying to demonstrate wiki-notability. And in case nobody has mentioned it yet, wiki-notability (nad most of the other bizarre wiki-jargon you will hear around wikipedia) has almost nothing to do with *actual* real-world-notability. So please, don't be offended by all the incredibly obtuse comments you will see; the folks here are mostly speaking wiki-jargon, and don't realize how it sounds to the untrained ear, they've been using (or mis-using as the case might be) the wiki-jargon for so long. In any case, you must realize a core truth: Wikipedia is not a place to argue about ideas, see WP:NOTFACEBOOK and also WP:NOTFORUM. Wikipedia is a place to report on, and summarize, what independent-third-party WP:SOURCES have said, about ideas, by amateurs that don't really understand the ideas; this is called, in the wiki-jargon, adhering to the Neutral Point Of View. Does this make sense? Counterintuitively, there is a method to this seeming-madness.
The kind of sources that we need, to properly write about you in a wikipedia article (per wiki-policy and wiki-jargon-rules), are in-depth newspapers/magazines/radio/teevee/books/peerReviewedPapers/governmentAgencyReports, written by third-party independent authors/editors/publishers, specifically about you-qua-you and/or your-activities-qua-your-activities. Ideally, your name will be right in the title of the piece ("Braun runs for president") ("Braun founds company") ("Braun gives lecture"), or failing that, a clear indication that you are the main topic of the piece. For example, in the 1982 newspaper article by the Phoenix Gazette, the very first paragraph starts out "Harry Braun..." and there is a big caricature-drawing of you. Your name wasn't in the title but clearly the piece is ABOUT you and your ideas. Passing mention of your name, and especially, *just* your name with no further details, is not enough depth for wikipedia purposes. We need sources that spend multiple paragraphs talking about you, and that go into some detail. In your 2004 campaign, there was an article in the Washington Post, where you and your campaign got about ten sentences, with several detailed points being made. That sort of thing is the minimum you should be looking for. Hope this helps, feel free to leave me a message if you like -- click 'talk' next to my signature, click 'new section' at the top of the page, type your note, then click save. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I took a shot at editing Harry Braun down to a reasonable size. It can be expanded (by reflecting what the WP:SOURCES in a neutral tone), as time goes on -- if you have suggestions about how to best expand it, please click 'new section' over on the Talk:Harry_Braun discussion-page. The article at the moment is particularly deficient about the 1990s, for instance, with the exception of the selected bibliography section. Also, please see my reply to you over on my usertalkpage, User_talk:75.108.94.227#Harry_Braun_article, for some additional hints and tips. A long bunch of them unfortunately! Apologies there are so many wiki-rules. Thanks for helping make wikipedia better, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
editing the article Harry Braun
[edit]Harry, you should not be editing the article about yourself. You need a better grasp on the wiki-policies, before you attempt it, and generally speaking, because it is about you, even when you *have* a better grasp on the wiki-policies, a couple years and a few thousand edits from now, you still should not edit your own article. Here is what you changed:
- you linked International Association for Hydrogen Energy to the article International Journal of Hydrogen Energy , which is not the exact same thing , and of which you are a member
- you linked http://www.iahe.org/advisory.asp directly from mainspace prose, which is against the manual of style, but more importantly, since you are a member of the group, is a promotional edit
- you deleted information about H2PAC, which is a former organization of yours , and therefore is something you should not be messing with , unless you first ask for unbiased advice from a disinterested wikipedian
- you inserted another external link, this one directly to a core platform-plank of your ongoing presidential campaign, and as a 527, also a fundraising vehicle thereof, which is blatantly promotional, http://DemocracyAmendmentUSA.net
- you also inserted the URL of your new PAC organization into the body prose, which is, as you've probably guessed by now, against the wiki-laws: DemocracyAmendmentUSA.net
- you changed the content of a sentence that was cited to a particular source... but you didn't change the source, and now the sentence in mainspace is no longer backed up by the source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Please undo you changes, ASAP.
Go to the article-page, Harry Braun.
Click on 'view history' at the top.
There is a little blue 'undo' button next to your most recent changes.
Click the undo-button next to your recent change, and then verify that you are ONLY undoing your own efforts (not Melanie's nor ONunicorn's work), then click save.
Once you have the article back to the way it was before you started adding stuff you should not have been adding, take a deep breath.
Then, you can click here:
Up at the top, click 'new section'.
Make your suggestions, for changes, and discuss with the other people at the talkpage, whether they are a good idea, or alternatively, whether they are likely to get you in hot wiki-water. At the moment, it's the latter. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks.[5] Crisis averted. :-) Well, not really a 'crisis' in the real world, but a wiki-crisis. You need to build up your wiki-reputation, as somebody that is going to be able to refrain from editing wikipedia with an eye (consciously intended or unconsciously but inherently biased) towards promoting their POTUS campaign. I know that you didn't mean any harm, and that you were merely trying to update the article helpfully, but we both know that, because of hte winner-take-all nature of presidential nominations contests, and because of the simple electoral-mathematics of the first past the post system, that you are forced to be constantly self-promotional of your name, your campaign, your message, your fundraising vehicles, your website, and all that stuff. Presidential races are basically a multi-year advertising binge, trying to sway the electoral consumers, especially that key demographic, the swing-voter. Well, technically speaking, swing-voters only matter in the general election; for the nomination race, the superdelegate to the DNC is the key demographic, as Obama proved in 2008. In your case, Braun'16 is also trying to sway another less-commonly-sought demographic, the article five convention delegate. So pretty naturally, you have trained yourself (in the real world) to think like a presidential candidate, out of necessity. That comes back to bite you in the wiki-jungle, for reasons laid out above. This cannot be helped, in the short term. It is possible to train yourself to be capable of NPOV, even for subjects you are passionate about, but it takes, as I mentioned, several years of exposure to the wiki-culture.
- The analogy I usually use to explain this sort of inherent-personal-bias, which creeps into your edits unconsciously even when you are consciously attempting to "stay wiki-neutral", is ghoulash. Now, wikipedia's article on this foodstuff is WOEFULLY WRONG and incomplete. I have personally eperienced the best dish of that substance in the known universe, when I first tasted my gramma's recipe. In fact, over at the article wikipedia has on grandmother, it looks like there is a missing factoid: "The grandmother of 75.108 is the best cook in the world." Who needs a citation for that, which could trump my personal experience, right? The recipe is a family secret passed down from generation to generation, of course there are no newspaper articles about gramma's cooking. Actually, come to think of it... now that I've put the sentence about my gramma being the best cook in the world into wikipedia, maybe I should link to her homepage, where people can read about her awesome recipes for other food. Hey, look, wikipedia has an article on food, gramma deserves to be listed there, this is important factual stuff....
- I am inherently biased about my gramma, among other things. You are inherently biased about the concept of a modern extinction-event, that could be averted, among other things. It is okay to be biased. It is NORMAL to be biased. But wikipedia is founded around the non-negotiable pillar of WP:NPOV, see short version at WP:5, and in practice that means, if it's been in the newspapers then wikipedia can mention a neutral just-the-facts summary of what the journalist said, but if it ain't WP:NOTEWORTHY in that specific fashion then wikipedia must remain silent thereupon. Anyways, I know that there are a bazillion rules, but wikipedia is straightforward, if you follow the main ones: stay neutral and stick to the wiki-reliable sources, be nice to your fellow wikipedians and to people in general, no copyvio/libel/etc, and concentrate on improving-qua-improving the encyclopedia-qua-encyclopedia. You were doing well on the staying nice, and you didn't break any real-world-laws related to libel/copyrights/etc, and you were TRYING to improve-qua-improve the encyclopedia, but you broke the key wiki-law about staying neutral in your editing-mindset. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hello 75.108.94.227.
- Thank you for your patience with me. And by the way, I am extraordinarily impressed with your comments. From the lack of citations in my websites, to the highly-intricate but fascinating universe of Wikipedia. I cannot tell you how grateful I am to have encountered you, Peridon, and MelanieN. You and your colleagues have collectively spent considerable professional time reviewing and analyzing my materials and explaining why I should not be trying to write my own articles. I did not want to bother you with such minor edits, but now I realize they were not minor edits. Please forgive me. To be clear, the first edit had to do with the fact that the International Association for Hydrogen Energy (IAHE.org) does not have a Wikipedia article, which surprised me given the extraordinary nature of this worldwide organization of scientists and engineers. I am going to contact Nejat Veziroglu about that issue, given he is the editor of the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, which as you pointed out is the official journal of the IAHE, does have a Wikipedia article. So rather than having the IAHE link go to a “would you like to create a Wikipedia article” page, the link would go to the IAHE Journal article that provides excellent information on the subject. Second, a citation was requested for my IAHE Advisory Board position, and since I do not have a published citation, I provided a link to the IAHE.org website that does verify my association as an Advisory Board Member. If this is not allowable, I presume we will have to delete this reference until it shows up in a publication.
- The third issue was the other defective link to H2Pac, which has evolved into the Democracy Amendment USA organization that is current and does have a link to its website. Before I undid all of the changes, I had already replaced the URL with just the name Democracy Amendment USA organization. Is that acceptable? I just wanted to avoid having defective links. These are certainly minor changes for you to consider, and as always, I look forward to your thoughts. Thank you again for your insightful observations.Harry W Braun III (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Harry, these are good suggestions, but I'm only just now seeing them. :-) You can freely comment directly on the Talk:Harry_Braun page, where exactly these issues are being discussed. You can suggest specific changes, if you see something that is busted, or needs attention. Always best to keep your suggestions simple and to the point: dear talkpage readers, the article currently says X, my suggestion is is should say Y, my source is Z (or my rationale is Z when sourcing is not required or already exists).
- As you can see there on that article-talkpage, Melanie and I have already come to the conclusion that listing your IAHE affiliation is permissible per mutually-supporting-WP:ABOUTSELF, as the wiki-jargon goes. Now usually, as I've explained to you, WP:NOTEWORTHY demands that some journalist has published the factoid, and if not, then the material *can* be removed. But there is discretion... it can be removed, iff challenged, aka should some editor come along and say, hey this IAHE sounds like they are not that important, maybe they ought be removed. Now in this case, such removal would not likely happen (or at least, would not likely stand), because there is talkpage-consensus that the IAHE is a reasonable thing to mention.
- For different reasons, we have come to the temporary conclusion (pending a bit more work on sourcing the names of the PACs to journalists or similar WP:SOURCES so as to strictly comply with WP:NOTEWORTHY) to remove mention of the PACs for the moment. As we were doing so, I noticed that we had forgotten the standard 'external links' section, which is the place where off-wiki sorts of hyperlinks go. Usually the subject of the BLP has a single official page, but in your case that is somewhat of a mystery. If you can comment about what your 'official page' (the domain name on the internet with the most information about you and your work) was in 2000, in 2005, in 2010, and in 2015, that will help us figure out what to list as the 'official page'. And of course, if you can help dig up some WP:SOURCES where the various PACs were mentioned, then we can add the relevant sentences back in.
redlinks are sometimes proper , and bluelinks are sometimes defective
|
|---|
|
- So, long story short, the redlink for H2PAC should be corrected by simply unlinking it, and writing it as H2PAC. The redlink for IAHE should be rectified, by creating the appropriate article, backed up by some WP:SOURCES that specifically give in-depth press-coverage to the association-qua-association. The redirect-bluelink for indoor plant cultivation should be converted to a dedicate-bluelink-article, once again with WP:42 sources to back up the new content. Finally, almost all off-wiki hyperlinks, such as ones to http://democracyAmendmentUsa.net and http://HarryBraunShow.com and your other websites, belong in one place and one place only, which is in the ExternalLinks section, and even then, as an anti-spam measure, the number and type of external links is severely restricted, as part of WP:SPIP and WP:NOTPROMOTION. Wikipedia tends to have one off-wiki hyperlink per article, or maybe two. The Harry Braun article will likely have one link to your official site, which is probably PhoenixProject , and another to C-SPAN. Whether there is one to your official 2016 campaign website or not, will depend on whether local talkpage consensus considers that promotional, or just helpful-to-the-readership. Almost certainly we won't link directly to the fundraising-vehicles like DemocracyAmendmentUsa , per WP:NOTPROMOTION. That might cover all the pieces, but if you have questions feel free to ask, either here or on the talkpage. You can also use WP:Q for many fast-answers. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Dear 75.108.94.227. Can't tell you how pleased I am to be included with the other presidential candidates. However, the posting says I am from Arizona when I have lived in Georgia since June of 2012. And rather than being referred to as a "perennial candidate" please consider the following descriptions: "Democratic Candidate" or "scientist" or "CEO" (of Mesa Wind and/or the Phoenix Project Foundation) or simply "research analyst." Many thanks.Harry W Braun III (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Harry, if you are talking about getting listed on Facebook, wikipedia editors have no control over that. And actually, I've been meaning to ask about that, can you give me a link to where they have their requirements, and/or a link to where they have their 'official' list of candidates-as-vetted-by-wikipedia? Definitely disagree that is a good idea, wikipedia vetting is too spotty. Or if you are talking about your candidacies here, we don't list you as a perennial candidate, there was a person who commented on that name at the AfD (and some others whose comments were similarly not in compliance with the wiki-policies as I would like... but there is limited time in the day and it's pointless to worry about what everybody else thinks, since if you are doing *anything* worthwhile there will always be *somebody* who thinks it is worthwhile to complain from the sidelines... believe there was a TR quote about that at some point).
- In any case, though I cannot help you about what facebook.com says or does not say, the *wikipedia* article on you is intended to be neutral and just the facts and without pushing any kind of point-of-view, either positive, negative, democrat-leaning, republican-leaning, etc. I wrote the lede myself, and it said Democratic political candidate (84/86 usrep + 04/12/16 presidential) and research (hydrogen/solar/photobiology). Later another good editor came along (one of those that changed bangvotes from delete to keep in fact) and changed the ordering, putting researcher first and candidate second, but said "multiple occasions" or something like that. I prefer to 'omit needless words' as the old Strunk&White saying goes, so I'll probably edit that bit out. I don't think it says perennial candidate, or has said such a thing; are you talking about an older revision of the page?
- But please, tell me specifically what you are talking about, by posting the specific URL of the page you are looking at? If it's facebook.com then you will have to take it up with them, if it's here on wikipedia then it depends, if it is a user-comment on a "back end" page then we give reasonably wide latitude to opinions and personal discussions (which is incidentally why it is okay for you and myself to chitchat about article-five-conventions whilst we continue to collaborate on Improving The Encyclopedia elsewhere simultaneously). There's a policy about no-personal-attacks, but it is generally reserved for playground-name-calling and up, not for misguided-but-not-intentionally-hurtful kinds of statements.
- Now, for something in mainspace, perennial candidate is a violation of NPOV, unless backed up by the WP:SOURCES specifically, and having *read* 90% of the known sources, that's not what you are called. Most of the sources don't give your chances of winning as very high, but they also don't put you in the same category as Harold Stassen, the poster-child for perennial candidates (ran in ten presidential elections ... ran ten times minimum... more depending on how you count). No offense, but you're not in Stassen's league. :-) And in any case, wikipedia reflects the sources, at least in mainspace as opposed to in talkspace, and the sources don't say quote perennial unquote. Quite frankly, as a practical matter, the only candidates who have a decent shot at winning are either people who ran once before (McCain'00/'08 + Romney'08/'12 + Santorum'12/'16 + Huckabee'08/'16 + Clinton'08/'16 for instance) or people that have family who did so (Clinton'92 + Bush'04 + Paul'12 for instance). For a candidate outside the establishment-pick-category, I'd say running seriously at least once before is a *minimum* to learn the ropes of a fifty-state campaign (plus territories which also send delegations to the national conventions). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hello 75.108.94.227. My last comments about my "perennial" candidate status and my being from "Arizona" instead of Georgia was not on Facebook, but Wikipedia under the title "Democratic Party Presidential Candidates 2016."
I have not yet focused on the Facebook website. Harry W Braun III (talk) 10:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Harry, please see replies below. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
notes about logging in
[edit]When you use wikipedia, you can do it like myself, without logging in, but then you show up as a number (in my case 75.108.blah.blah which you are free to shorten to 75.108 if you wish -- or simply "hey you" also works :-)
You have created a username, with a password, but your username will only show up when you are actually logged into the wikipedia website, on the particular computer you are using at that moment.
You can tell if you are logged in by looking up in the top-right-hand-corner of the wikipedia-website-page. If you see this:
Create account Log in
Then you are not logged in, at that particular moment, on that particular computer. Thus, if you click the 'edit' button, you will see a warning in yellow ("you are not logged in").
If you then click the 'preview' button, you will see some kind of numeric signature like 11.22.33.44 after the comment you just typed, rather than the expected 'proper' signature (below).
If you click 'save' then the numeric info is put onto the page. The numeric info reveals your computer's internet location, but it also (to the tech savvy) reveals your physical location, sometimes roughly within a ten-mile-radius, or sometimes more exactly within one or two houses. As a candidate you probably want your website, your campaign-phone-number, and other such contact-info available to the public, but you probably don't want your internet-location visible. Click 'preview' before you click 'save' is the key, and verify that it says 'Harry W Braun III' at the bottom, not some numeric-computer-number-stuff.
In particular, if you use wikipedia from MULTIPLE computers, your username won't automatically be saved on all of those machines. Best practice is to edit wikipedia from a single relatively-physically-secure location, such as your laptop, and then not edit wikipedia from other computer-systems. If you do edit from multiple machines, get in the habit of logging in before you visit wikipedia (and clicking preview before you click save). See also, the official helpdocs, WP:PRIVACY about posting personally-identifiable-info, and WP:PARANOIA about keeping your own peronally-identifiable-info relatively private. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
notes about wikilinking
[edit]If you want to tell me about a specific article, you can make it a bluelink, which works on talkpages and not just in mainspace. So for instance, here is black-plaintext Harry Braun, which is NOT linked in any fashion, and here is blue-wikilink Harry Braun which I can click to visit the article about that renewable energy consultant and political candidate. Note that capitalization and punctuation matters, Harry braun is a redlink, and so is Harry W. Braun, because wikipedia's search facility is the preferred way to figure such things out.
So in your specific case, you mentioned I should visit the page improperly listing you as a perennial candidate, but I thought you were talking about facebook, or some old revision of the Harry Braun page. You directed me to the correct location, specifically like this:
- works: Wikipedia under the title "Democratic Party Presidential Candidates 2016."
- better: Wikipedia under the title "Democratic Party Presidential Candidates 2016." (n.b. redlink because of missing comma and alternative capitalization-style)
- best: Wikipedia under the title Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016.
- bestbest: Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016
- bestshort: dems'16
Theoretically, you could also have been trying to point me towards some page on facebook.com (or another non-english-wikipedia-domain), which requires a different syntax:
- works: please look at DemocracyAmendmentUSA.net/papers.html
- better: please look at http://www.DemocracyAmendmentUSA.net/papers.html
- best: please look at DemocracyAmendmentUSA
- bestbest: at DemocracyAmendmentUSA
- bestshort: at DAU
See also my longer set of examples, in the earlier sections of your talkpage, for all the tricky ways that links can be used. These are the main ones though. When talking with me, any of the above will work, I'm not picky. Most wikipedians will prefer the "bestbest" style, if you want to standardize how you do things (some are annoyed by bestshort). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I've inserted the correct state, the expected launch-date of your campaign, and a more-NPOV-compliant "job title" for you. I've left the "campaign website" pointed at http://DemocracyAmendmentUsa.net , since I'm not positive you are ready for http://Braun2016.US to be getting traffic. When the official campaign website is fully functional, let me know (or really, let any other wikipedian know, such as Melanie or the WP:TEAHOUSE people) that your official campaign site is live, and the PAC website should be swapped for the campaign-website. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Updates?
[edit]Hello, Mr. Braun! Your article is out of date and needs updating. Can you tell us if you have "formally announced" your candidacy yet? Can you provide a link to the announcement, or better yet to any Reliable Source coverage of it?
I notice that the website http://www.braunforpresident.us/ is now live - is that your official campaign website? --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I can answer some of these questions, Harry asked me on my usertalk to update the Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016#Other_candidates section with some factual corrections and some BLP-related-inaccuracies. (The policy not the human. ;-) The site you mention is the official campaign website which "soft-launched" on September 6th according to the google-crawler, and the PR launch was a week or two ago, when Harry emailed his media-kit out. Because his name is common it is hard to search properly -- there is a Harry Braun who plays bluegrass in Ohio, several athletes by that name in various high school sports, at least one Harry Braun who is a photojournalist in Germany, and *most* unfortunately a Harry Braun who is a mayor in Canada so words like 'election' and 'campaign' do not help disentangle the search-hits. There was also the unlucky coincidence that on the 5th/6th of September happened to exactly be when Lessig'16 campaign officially launched (before it was just a super-PAC operation and had not filed with the FEC). In any case, I did find this source, for the 2016 campaign:
- Rich Sullivan (August 3, 2015). "Sully talks with Presidential Candidate Harry Braun about his [2016] Presidential Run". The Sully Show. WGST-AM.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|city=ignored (|location=suggested) (help)
- Rich Sullivan (August 3, 2015). "Sully talks with Presidential Candidate Harry Braun about his [2016] Presidential Run". The Sully Show. WGST-AM.
- In other news, Harry, please see my long reply to your questions over at User_talk:75.108.94.227#IAHE_Update, and you can peek at Draft:T._Nerat_Veziroğlu when you have a moment, and leave suggestions at Draft_talk:T._Nerat_Veziroğlu. MelanieN, you are also welcome to help there, of course, if you like. I've also run across a few additional sources for the Harry Braun article, including a key find, a nice multi-page source from the 2004 campaign which was published as a "shock jock" type of book about the journalistic aspect of campaign-coverage during the primaries. The book-title is embarrassingly crude, and the description in those pages is *definitely* WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV material, but it is quite a lot of depth, we can extract the boring just-the-facts parts of the book-coverage, and use that info to expand significantly on the 2004 campaign, including a bit of detail on many of the specific platform-planks about hydrogen are covered, as well as how the hydrogen-issue impacts a broad spectrum of political topics. Good interview, if a bit edgy. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Here is the link to the formal announcement, which in turn links to the policy-paper-slash-platform-statement-PDF. http://phoenixprojectfoundation.us/Schedule__Calendar_.html "Harry Braun's 2016 President Announcement: While Hillary is on a listening tour, Harry Braun has provided a 100-page policy document that includes his testimony to the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Congress." Harry, did you prepare testimony for a congressional hearing, and perhaps submit the paperwork to Washington DC, or did you go to DC and speak in person before some subcommittee? Usually the latter type of stuff is archived on CSPAN and documented in the federal register; if you did go in person, what date(s)? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Identity verification
[edit]Identity verified
|
|---|
 If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username. If you choose to do so, we ask the following:
If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below). A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Mr. Braun! Don't be alarmed by this block. It is routine. Your user name matches the name of an article here. That's not against the rules, since you ARE the same person. But to protect your identity, Wikipedia requires proof that you are the same person. Just follow the instructions above, about sending an email from the Braun for President address, and you should be unblocked promptly. In the meantime, you are still able to post here on your own talk page, even though you can't post anywhere else until you are unblocked. --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC) |
Hello User:Salvidrim! and User:MelanieN. Please not I have send an email from my BraunforPresident.US email account, and thank you for your efforts to keep any fraud from happening.Harry W Braun III (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick cooperation with the verification process intended to ensure your own security. I have unblocked your account. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)