User talk:Levelor
{{unblock | reason=Works for me. So, other than not talking about Carl McGee, what are the conditions of my, um... parole? [[User:Levelor|Levelor]] ([[User talk:Levelor#top|talk]]) 19:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)}}
{{Unblock on hold | 1=JzG | 2=Hey guys, it's been what - five years now, since I was blocked. I was accused of an attack piece by a few editors who aren't even around anymore and the remaining ones probably never read the original article. Regardless, I've got no plans to write about it anymore so it'd be nice to unblock this, thanks.[[User:Levelor|Levelor]] ([[User talk:Levelor#top|talk]]) 16:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | 3=[[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 18:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)}}
I am still around, I remember it, the accusations were entirely valid; we judge such things form the objective facts not form what any particular person says. If you come back, it will be on a parole including a topic ban from any discussion of Carl McGee. Happy with that? Guy (Help!) 19:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Old
[edit]
Levelor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reason: I'm not sure to whom I am appealing - the article was deleted and I was blocked by several different editors or administrators. To the most recent, Irishguy, your insistence that it was an attack piece does not make it so. In fact, you and others dismissing the piece as a personal attack may be guilty of one yourself see wikipedia:no personal attacks
Specifically: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack."
Since my story is based on news accounts of a public figure, it is of no consequence that the charges were dropped. As I pointed out before, Charges were not even brought in the matter of the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal, let alone dropped. Charges were also dropped in the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, and yet that continues to be newsworthy in spite of it not involving public figures.
Thus far, I've received nothing more than dismissive remarks and attempts at shut outs from the entire wikipedia community. The rules thrown at me by editors (i.e., nearly everybody who doesn't like the subject matter of the story) do nothing but reinforce my position - I am not making a personal attack by writing about Carl Stanley McGee. Nobody has even addressed the question of why a stub article would not be appropriate, similar to that of Charles McGee. Why the code of silence surrounding Carl Stanley McGee?
If there were a lawyer among all the editors out there who could interpret any wikipedia rule demonstrating otherwise and use it against me I'd be impressed. Until such time, actions to block my account amount to convenient and ill-thought censorship. Levelor (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Article was a clear attack page, repeated requests for unblocking will simply lead to this talk page being protected. — Tim Vickers (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Levelor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reason: I have read the BLP and UNDUE pages. I disagree that I violated those terms and I believe an editing, but not complete deletion, of the subject of the page on Carl Stanley McGee is more warranted. I am not certain of what else it is you want me to do to become unblocked. Did you mean that you want me to explain why I must NOT write this article again? I'm confused, and this sounds a bit condescending. I can understand if there are parts of the article in its entirety that you would consider objectionable (use of blogs, etc.) but if you are asking me to completely cease any and all mention of Carl Stanley McGee and the recent news stories about him, then I would like to turn your attention to the page on Charles McGee. This page concerns another small time political figure from New England who was in the news. The article is a stub, and contains little else about Charles McGee other than the details surrounding his criminal trial. I don't think it is unreasonable for a similar page for Carl Stanley McGee to be published. Charles McGee is a small businessman who was once a Republican party official at the state level, whereas Carl Stanley McGee was and continues to be a high level state government official directly involved in policy making decisions. Publishing Carl Stanley McGees story therefore is not a personal attack as everyone should know by now, but actively suppressing it smacks of partisanship. As a member of the Gov. Deval Patrick gubernatorial administration, he and has been written about in Boston and New York papers even before his arrest. He is very active in the legal battle for gay marriage in New England and does not shy away from publicity. The standard for malice regarding a public figure hinges upon actual malice and is far higher than for ordinary persons and the re-publication of a news story on Wikipedia does not come close to reaching this standard. Moreover, Wikipedia's own rules do not prohibit publication: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Even these days, the definition of routine topics does not include stories of high ranking political officials getting arrested for sex crimes and placed on $300,000 bail. Stories like that are far from routine and are still talked about even in the absence of criminal charges. See also Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal. Moreover, a story is not tabloid journalism simply by virtue of its lurid subject matter or unpopularity with some people. A verifiable news story of a public official is a matter of public concern and it is not completely swept under the rug by even the most sympathetic news organizations. Therefore, this story most definitely IS news, at least as much as is the story of Charles McGee. The text does not give undue weight to the arrest of Carl Stanley McGee any more than the stub on Charles McGee gives undue weight to his criminal matter. Please reconsider unblocking my account and the publication, at least in part, of the Carl Stanley McGee story. Thank you. Levelor (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As noted below (repeatedly), you were writing an attack page. As you even wrote in the article, the charges were dropped. This isn't encyclopedic and is nothing more than a smear article. — IrishGuy talk 20:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{hangon}}
Levelor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to be unblocked. I was blocked for allegedly writing an attack page, which is nonsense. I wrote an honest page on a newsworthy event involving a public figure. If the problem is the facts, that does not amount to an attack page. If there is something that needs better citation, let me correct it. The stor of Carl Stanley McGee deserves to be published and accusing me of writing an attack page does not make it so. I have the facts on my side and would like a chance to create a page based on those facts. So far, I have had no communication regarding this indefinite blockage and I'm beginning to think there are people in the wikipedia community who are trying to bury the story of Carl Stanley McGee. I have read the related rules, to include the ones about SPAs. This account is not an SPA and just because some people may not like the subject matter of the article on Carl Stanley McGee, this does not make it unworthy of publication. I have also seen the page "don't bite the newcomers" Please don't bite me and let me publish this story with no further baseless accusations of creating attack pages. Thank you.
Decline reason:
Understand that something can be the truth, and still be a violation of WP:BLP. Read two sections of policy pages: WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:UNDUE. After you have read these, explain why you must not create this article again. If your explanation is satisfactory, you may be unblocked — Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Speedy deletion of Carl Stanley McGee
[edit]
Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dethme0w (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Carl Stanley McGee page is unwarranted
[edit]Your deletion of this page makes no sense, as the article is quite notable, has been written about in several Boston and Florida news stories, and it concerns a public official in a matter of public concern. Charles Stanley McGee is a high ranking politician in the Deval Patrick gubernatorial administration (Massachusetts) and has recently been charged with a very serious offense. He is free on several hundred thousand dollars bail money. His case is commented on by Boston radio personalities and is a current events story, NOT a personal attack, as was claimed in the "speedy deletion" message I received just now.
Nothing in the page I wrote could be rightly considered a personal attack. I am an attorney and I am well aware of the legal limitations of my first amendment rights. I know they do not give me carte blanche to expose private individuals to public attention, nor do they allow me to libel anyone. In my article, I have done neither. I have only reported what is available through open source news documents on a public figure in a matter of public concern. Please reinstate my page at once or at least provide a more complete explanation as to what is wrong with the page, as submitted.
Thank you, Levelor.
Update: deletion of Carl Stanley McGee page was motivated by partisanship
[edit]I can't believe this is the person who deleted the page (from his web site):
"Rejected by Wikipedia? Jan. 20, 2008
Have you recently posted an article to Wikipedia only to find it deleted? Perhaps your article wasn't considered "encyclopedic" enough, or it lacked rigorous sourcing, or espoused a point of view. Perhaps it was even me, Dethme0w, who proposed it for deletion.
Well, take heart. Your article may have a home here at AOH. We have considerably looser standards than Wikipedia does. We allow partisan screeds and religious rants (in fact we want them very much!). We have a whole section for fringe science; Wikipedia only allows writing about the existence of this subject. We really want lots of hacks and how-to's; these are deleted on sight on Wikipedia. The only things we don't want are items that will get us in trouble for hosting them: libel, illegal porn, passwords, credit cards, anything that can hurt someone just by being here."
So Wikipedia content is determined by capricious hackers from Canada? Please consider the source of the deletion and its highly arbitrary nature. This person obviously has an agenda.Levelor (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Carl Stanley McGee
[edit]Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whitstable 18:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]You have been blocked from editing for violating out policy on biographies of living individuals. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
BLOCKED??
[edit]So this is what it comes down to? I was in the middle of updating a page on Carl Stanley McGee and all of a sudden I get another drive-by deletion and a block from further editing. This is exactly the kind of behavior that makes Wikipedia untrustworthy and unreliable in the minds of academics and the general public alike
The story of Carl Stanley McGee is newsworthy and needs to be told. If there are any factual inaccuracies or improper sources, I will correct the errors. If it needs to be reduced to a stub, let that happen, but deletion is completely uncalled for. I will not stop trying to add Carl Stanley McGees story to Wikipedia since it truly should be there and efforts to exclude it are beginning to resemble partisanship. Levelor (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Unblocked
[edit]As agreed, leave Carl McGee alone, plus read our policy on biographies and make sure you err on the side of caution. Welcome back. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)