User talk:MDM88

Speedy deletion nomination of Kathryn Ann Taylor

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kathryn Ann Taylor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted 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. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting this page? What are you trying to hide? She is a notable person who is the CEO of a large corporation. Her husband is currently running for president of the United States of America. She has contributed many charities. Why are you trying to silence this information? MDM88 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Steyer

That's not how it's done. You can ask for help here: the help desk. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She deserves to have her own Wikipedia page. Why do you keep deleting it? What gives you the right to decide? MDM88 (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get it that you don’t want anybody to be able to link from Tom Steyer’s Wikipedia page to his wife. But that should not be your decision. Why are you trying to silence information? MDM88 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kathryn Ann Taylor

Nobody is saying she's not notable, but it has to be an article first. Keep building it. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't silence me. You are obviously trying to hide information from the public.

Calm down, this isn't conspiracy ploy, or whatever. The page you started is not ready for mainspace in it's present state. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 20:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Draft: Kathryn Ann Taylor deleted? MDM88 (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't it's still right here Draft:Kathryn Ann Taylor. Clam down. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 23:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to write articles that won't be rejected

If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything that is not you or something you are connected to, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find. Google Books is a good resource for this. Also, while search engine results are not sources, they are where you can find sources. Just remember that they need to be professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.

5) Combine overlapping summaries where possible (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports), repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 3 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion.

If you are writing about yourself, or someone or something you are connected with (such as a friend, family member, or your business), the following steps are different:

0) If the subject really was notable, you wouldn't need to write the article. Remember that articles are owned by the Wikipedia community as a whole, not the article subject or the article author. If you do not want other people to write about you, then starting an article about yourself is a bad idea.

8a) If the article is accepted, never edit it again. Instead, make edit requests on the article's talk page.

8b) If the article is rejected, there will be a reason given. Read it carefully and closely. If there are links in the reason, open them and read those pages.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

"Assume good faith" is a foundational site policy.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Biographies of persons assumed to be alive are held to especially high standards of verifiability -- all unsourced information may be removed, no matter how plausible.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not change others' comments. New comments go at the bottom, under the comments they are responding to.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am calm

Stop telling me to calm down. It was not there before. I really feel like you’re trying to suppress information from the public. MDM88 (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No we're not. We have content guidelines and standards. If you want the article to remain, then you have to make properly referenced assertions of notability. The article must be written in the style of an encyclopedia biography. Once that is done, then we can confirm whether or not Ms. Taylor merits inclusion. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 00:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if you continue to add the same content without adhering to the policies I linked above, then you will be blocked. Thank you, caknuck _° needs to be running more often 00:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kat

Someone else marked it for speedily deleted again MDM88 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kathryn Ann Taylor

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Kathryn Ann Taylor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted 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. GPL93 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 00:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The exact steps you need to take

0) Actually read this. The issue is not that we're "suppressing" information. The issue is that you are not putting in the right information in the right way -- it is entirely your fault because you don't know what you're doing. That's why you need to listen when other users give you advice on how to correctly achieve your goal instead of being paranoid.

1) Find professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources about Taylor. I mean stuff like newspaper articles. Don't just cite other Wikipedia articles, those are written and administered by monkeys on typewriters (thus sayeth one of the aforesaid primates).

2) Throw away all the sources that are by Taylor, her friends and family, or anyone who works with or for any of them. Independent sources. Throw away all the sources that are not specifically and primarily about Taylor. If the source is about Steyer and just mentions Taylor, that's not good enough.

3) SUMMARIZE and PARAPHRASE and cite the remaining sources. Do not just copy from your sources! We can't take plagiarism or copyright violations.

4) Post that paraphrased summary and nothing else into Draft:Kathryn Ann Taylor. Do not remake the Kathryn Ann Taylor link.

I've already explained this in the above section on how to write articles that won't be rejected. Those instructions are more specific than these, but they're ultimately the same. If you continue to screw up these instructions, you may be removed from editing in at least that area. For example, if you remake the Kathryn Ann Taylor link, either you're gonna get blocked or it's gonna get locked. If you continue to post copyrighted information, you're gonna end up blocked. If you keep trying to write a draft about Taylor without citing independent reliable sources, you're just gonna leave everyone (especially yourself) annoyed at your self-imposed Sisyphean torment. If you continue to fail to see that everyone here is actually trying to help (both) you (and the site), people are going to stop helping (you in favor of the site). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for you help. This is important to me. MDM88 (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kathryn Ann Taylor

I hope you don't mind, but I took a look at Draft:Kathryn Ann Taylor and reorganized the text you had there. Also, per the manual of style, I changed all of the places where you referred to her and her husband as "Kat" and "Tom" to refer to them by their surnames. The main thing the article needs at this point in order to be moved out of draft space and back into the main part of the encyclopedia, is to cite some more sources for its information. Think newspaper or magazine articles about her. If you don't know how to cite them, let me know and I can help you figure out how to use the citation templates. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MDM88 (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 00:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a attack page. He is a significant person. Who is the person who gets to decide that Rayshard Brooks is not hey significant person?

MDM88 (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Kathryn Ann Taylor

Hello, MDM88. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kathryn Ann Taylor".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t delete MDM88 (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious timing to try to delete MDM88 (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Sean Parnell

Hello, MDM88. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sean Parnell".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Rayshard Brooks

Hello, MDM88. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rayshard Brooks".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 21

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are now edit warring, stop and make a case at talk.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also your need to read wp:v and wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And wp:CIR if English is not your first language it might not be best to edit here, it fit is, then you need to take more care reading sources.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC) U.S. Congressman Adam Kinzinger was an aide to former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. This is a fact and there are multiple sources to back it up. I feel like Slatersteven is trying to suppress important factual information to the world.[reply]

No it is not, read what the sources say, hell I will do it for you " GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger and a longtime aide to Speaker Paul D. Ryan each were given an early look at the final report added to the infamous “Steele dossier,” court documents in a lawsuit against Buzzfeed News show.", read more than the headline.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you shared verified what I'm saying: "GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger and a longtime aide to Speaker Paul D. Ryan"

"...each were given..." they are not the same person, read wp:cherrypicking.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the dossier was not compiled until 4 years after he took office, I am trying to suppress factually inaccurate (and that is being very generous) information. Right now this is wp:disruptive aND YOU SHOULD REMOVE IT.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And read wp:blp, we can't have false content in a BLP. As such I have removed it, per policy. Add it in again and I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So now make a case at talk, and explain why "each were given" means it's the same person.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]