User talk:NARAS

Welcome!

Hello, NARAS, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

In addition to my comments at User talk:Slakr, I'd like to raise some indirectly related issues.

Firstly, it's pretty clear from your comment there ("We are one step away from legal action") that you are editing Wikipedia as a representative of Meresha. Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the disclosure requirements of paid contributors to Wikipeda.

Secondly, you should take a look at WP:No legal threats. Threatening legal action can see you blocked from editing Wikipedia. One reason is that "Do as I say or I'll sic the lawyers on you" has a chilling effect and is harmful to the collaborative editing environment we aim for. If you believe you have a valid legal claim, you can of course pursue legal action - but you cannot edit Wikipedia at the same time. Huon (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NARAS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here NARAS (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC) It looks like a Wikipedia admin may have committed a crime. Instead of addressing the serious issue, I was blocked. It does look like retaliation in direct violation of Wikipedia policy to not "punish users". My comment was meant to repair serious damage caused by a Wikipedia Admin Ping @Slakr (please read it, as I was literally blocked a few seconds after posting it, allowing no time to read it seriously). Blocking a whistleblower is essentially witness shaming or "Shoot the messenger" and should not happen on Wikipedia. @Huon: @Slakr: @NeilN: I am not a "paid contributor" to Wikipedia. I am not a contributor at all on any page except in this issue. I only got involved when I saw the damage done and am not knowledgeable about Wikipedia editing code. I have not made any "legal threats", as I have no legal standing to do so. I don't appreciate this insinuation. I am just pointing out that committing crimes puts people and Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. That is something in Wikipedia's interest to understand and promptly address. NARAS (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC) My comments can be seen here "Slakr - you have defamed an emerging artist - Meresha based on a bogus claim of Copyright and refused to even respond" on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Slakr[reply]

Decline reason:

This statement: "Defamation is a serious criminal act. Meresha has through Wikipedia action as represented by yourself and Slakr (as Admin) experienced material damages for which you may also personally be held responsible monetarily" and this statement: "Defamation is a crime by US law. You have implied that a major emerging artist's Wikipedia page is somehow connected to Copyright infringement, while knowing that your claim is fraudulent" are unambiguous attempts to instil a chilling effect via threat of legal consequences. That's notwithstanding the fact that you have also utterly misunderstood the situation, as NeilN explains below. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You're not understanding. The editor Juniorcardenas30 took text from here or here and copied it into the Meresha article. That puts Wikipedia in legal jeopardy and that's why the article was deleted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for reviewing admin: Although NARAS seems to have disclaimed making legal threats, the accusation of an admin committing a crime and a drastic misunderstanding of copyright still exist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a legal threat to me. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It reads as a very clear and unambiguous legal threat to me. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello NARAS, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Hopefully this will clarify copyvio in the Wikipedia sense. Thank you. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward-- proposed unblock requirements

To be unblocked you need at minimum to affirm that you understand that Meresha was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policies on the use of material copyrighted elsewhere. Wikipedia content must be free-- Creative Commons GFDL or public domain. No one accused the subject of anything.

You, however, have accused a member of the community of a crime. That violates our policy against making personal attacks--WP:NPA. You need to withdraw that statement and apologize.

Reviewing admin, please NB--Your appearance out of the blue hurling accusations and your user name suggest a connection with The Recording Academy, "formerly the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences or NARAS". User accounts are for individuals only. Please see Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional_names and Wikipedia:Username_policy#Usernames_implying_shared_use. You will need a user name that represents you as an individual.

If you are here as part of your job, WP:COI and WP:PAID may apply. There are things you must do and restrictions you must follow if that is the case.

Almost forgot. Interestingly, the page was previously deleted as the work of a banned or blocked user "deleted page Meresha (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (OfficialPankajPatidar)" I'll leave it to another to ponder this.

Any other admin may modify this as they see fit. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the facts

{{unblock NARAS (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NARAS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

please see blow

Decline reason:

You are welcome to pursue legal action. However, you will not be allowed to edit until that legal action is fully resolved, or until you unconditionally withdraw the legal threat. Nothing else matters here. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, that's irrelevant to my unblock decline. You have made a legal threat, as is your right. But, once that threat is made, you cannot continue editing. You are welcome to request another unblock. That unblock must, however, either state that your legal action is complete, or that you unconditionally withdraw the threat of legal action. More details are available in WP:NLT. Yamla (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wow. Shoot the messenger and attack a newbie from all angles, to defend fellow admins; no matter the facts.

This is not what I thought Wikipedia is about.

Facts should prevail.

Sorry if anyone was offended, but the facts are on my side. I have been wrongly blocked and there have been now what looks like several false claims of Copyright infringement made.

NeilN said the Meresha Wikipedia page was a Copyright infringement of either here or here . If you go to Meresha’s page noted (the 2nd link), it literally says “Source Wikipedia…”

It seems the author “Juniorcardenas30” was wrongly accuesed of copying from one of those 2 sources. Neither of those 2 have any references. The Meresha Wikipedia page has/had over 20. For your Copyright Infringement claim to be correct, you would have to assume that the various authors that worked on the page went to Don-P’s page, copied it, then chased down all the original sources. That is not what happened.

Juniorcardenas30 translated the Wikipedia text on the Portuguese version of Wikipedia originally, Jan. 11, 2017.

here

The record confirms this: “(atu | ant) 22h12min de 11 de janeiro de 2017 Juniorcardenas30 (discussão | contribs) . . (6 842 bytes) (+6 842) . . (Criado ao traduzir a página "Meresha") (agradecer) (Etiquetas: Possível conteúdo ofensivo, Inserção de predefinição obsoleta, ContentTranslation)”

That page was edited by him and others since. The English version, of which I have found screenshots, is now substantially more developed with additional information and references. I am not able to upload the screenshots, though you have access to the page I understand.

The Don-P article is dated Jan. 15, 2017. As you point out, it is a copy of the Wikipedia text. Don-P could not have physically written the original given it came out later than the Wikipedia version. He copied Wikipedia. I have written to Don-P and asked him to write “Source Wikipedia”, though that is irrelevant to our discussion, and only serves to protect him.

As noted the Don-P page may also violate Meresha’s copyright and contract terms as you can read yourself in the links of my previous comments, which makes is a very doubtful source for such radical action. He finished 42nd in a remixing competition of Meresha’s music, and owns no related rights. If such a source is the basis for a deletion, there is no basis at all. You can contact Don-P directly at info@don-p.com (address published online) if you would like to follow up further.

The Wikipedia page is the original source.

The claim of Copyright Infringement is absurd. It is like saying “I heard someone singing a song, therefore the orignal must have infringed on Copyright.” Can’t you see how absurd that is?

That is not Copyright Infringement, and it should not affect the Meresha page in any way.

I am not paid by anyone for fighting this great injustice and am not a party in any legal way. I have no legal standing to threathen anyone, so the block is based on false grounds. I am happy to delete all my comments and even account once the Meresha page is back up. I am not able to delete the two sentences Yunshui found offensive (even if they are factually correct), because I have been blocked.

Various pages (and applications for opportunities) linked to Meresha’s Wikipedia page (including her own website). Visitors now click through to find a false “Copyright Infringement” claim.

It is potentially career ending and toxic for any musician to be implicated in Copyright Infringement in any way. This is very damaging. Harm has already been done.

Please unblock me so I can delete the 2 objectionable sentences, and later my full contribution when this is resolved.

More importantly, please restore the Meresha Wikipedia page which was wrongly deleted. If there specific sentences that someone has an issue with (lacking reference, etc.) I am sure that can be dealt with in a less radical way.

@Huon: @Slakr: @Dlohcierekim: @Yunshui:

The version of the Wikipedia article that contained the copyright infringement was created on April 6, 2017 so your assumptions are wrong. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do see a version on January 2, 2017. Are you saying you wrote that? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a checkuser on a couple accounts. An editor recreating a substantially identical article to a blocked serial sockmaster indicates something is up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are referring to NeilN. I have joined Wikipedia recently to work to right this wrong given how blatant it is. I do not know how to build a Wikipedia page and have just learned today how to sign my posts. Meresha was selected as one of the Top 20 musicians in the world for her latest album by Allmusic, a core music reference, which is about as legit as it gets for an Indie. The other people chosen are world famous (Calvin Harris, Lorde, Kesha, etc.) here She has lots of fans in Brazil, Spain, France, etc. and a large number of followers overall. It is not unusual that people translated her page into other language versions. There was a public interest served. The Don-P page is a copy of Wikipedia. That is now indisputable, and you can also ask him directly if you would like. On what do you still base your Copyright Infringement claim? NARAS (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: You have talk page access solely to request an unblock. The only way to request an unblock is to unconditionally withdraw your legal threat or indicate your legal action is fully completed. It's inappropriate for you to use your talk page for any other purpose. --Yamla (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Note this may not be sufficient to be unblocked; there are concerns you are evading a block on another account, for example, but it's the minimum you must do). --Yamla (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NARAS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As noted, I have no standing to make a legal threat. There is no pending legal action that I know of. I unconditionally withdraw any threat of legal action. I have already volunteered to remove the text that was objected to, but am blocked from doing so, which makes no sense. More importantly, though, please review the main facts of the case which have to do with a wrongful page deletion due to a mistake. For the avoidance of doubt, the Don-P page now also says "Source: Wikipedia". here The whole basis for the this case is 0. @Huon: @Slakr: @Dlohcierekim: @Yunshui: @NeilN: @Yamla:NARAS (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Turns out, you're a sockpuppet. Max Semenik (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

WP:SPI

Note that you've been reblocked, as this account is confirmed as a sockpuppet account of Musicfandom (talk · contribs). You'll need to modify your unblock request to address this. --Yamla (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The case page is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: @Dlohcierekim: I really don't understand this. The facts of the case show that I was right and I am blocked indefinitely? That seems pretty abusive via me. Don't you think? As I wrote am happy to delete the account entirely and any remarks I have made. I saw that the Meresha page still erroneously says it was taken down for Copyright infringement. That's pretty dishonest, isn't it, as it was proven that there was no Copyight infringement. I don't really understand what a sock puppet is and how it relates to me. On the page you note, it says a sock puppet "attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies." Which of those do you think applies? It feels like retaliation for pointing out that an admin made a mistake. NARAS (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In normal circumstances, the first thing to do would be to ask the deleting admin to recheck, without saying they fraudulently committed the crime of defamation.

The next would be to appeal at WP:DRV. These not being normal circumstances--

@Slakr:-- re G12 deletion of Meresha. Source says "from Wikipedia" at the bottom? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: I don't understand what you are saying. Will you launch an appeal? Sklar ignored me for weeks, and only replied once I made his mistake very clear. His response was defensive and signaled a refusal to fix the mistake. Other admins have not helped resolve the core issue so far. I have been blocked for trying to address this deletion issue. I do not understand your world, which seems very closed to people who don't understand it. Everything I said was true and proven correct, even if I could have said it more diplomatically. I am happy to delete the 2 sentences one of the admins objected to, or indeed everything I have written to date and just do the WP:DRV thing you mention. Once that is through I can fully delete this account NARAS (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you understood that this "Slakr - you have defamed an emerging artist - Meresha based on a bogus claim of Copyright and refused to even respond," is simply not true? That no one claimed Meresha violated copyright? That you violated our polices when you said another user had committed a crime? That was the reason for your block-- initially.

As to the speedy deletion of the article, I have pinged the deleting admin to look at the deleted page.

No one cares about you claiming an admin made an error. People do it all the time, and without resorting to the sort of bombast that lead to your block.

The current problem is you appear to have been using more than one account. (We'll forget the issue for now of your user name looking like it represents a organization. As I said earlier, user names must reflect use by a single individual user.) Let's address the WP:sockpuppet issue then. Did you read the link to the WP:SPI case? A checkuser found a connection between you and I forget who without looking it up. AS this is now a check user block, only a check user can even think about unblocking you.

Also, you seem to be saying your only purpose in being here is complaining about the deletion of Meresha. If that is the case, there is no point in unblocking you. And yes, things here are not always easy to understand. Sorry I cannot be more helpful, but you have not made it easy. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Hi, My daughter has an account and asked me to get involved when the page of someone she admires was deleted. How is that against any rules? Was she blocked too? Sock puppet seems to be a toxic term from what I understand. The link said it can even be perfectly legit for individuals to even have several accounts. What exactly am I being accused of in this latest block if I have not violated any rules? If anything, I have been too direct and clear of what my intention is.

I have already volunteered several times to remove any offensive text, but can't because I am blocked. If the main problem with me is that my text was too direct, how does it make sense to block me to fix that? Please note that I was direct after having been totally ignored by Slakr for several weeks, which also shouldn't happen. It was nothing personal, but it is frustrating when you see that something bad has happened, and the only person who can directly help is unresponsive.

As to the name I chose, I have not noticed any of the admins using their real names. According to the Webster dictionary, naras is a spiny southern African desert shrub (Acanthosicyos horrida) of the family Cucurbitaceae having a fruit resembling a melon and oily edible seeds. How is that less legit of a name compared to anyone I have had contact with? That being said, happy to change my name if people find it troublesome.

In terms of defaming an artist - in practice, in my opinion, it seems to still be happening. The Wikipedia link to her page clicks through to nothing except an explanation that her page was deleted for Copyright Infringement. HER page = Copyright Infringement. Someone who is not a Wikipedia admin will likely not understand that something besides HER having done something wrong is implied. Anyone reading could understand that she infringed on someone's Copyright. We all know now that the whole Copyright Infringement thing is wrong. Leaving that information online, while knowing it is wrong, can be considered purposeful intent to harm someone's reputation. That pretty much is the definition of defamation. That being said, as mentioned several times, I am happy to delete the related sentences that some found too direct.

Wikipedia pages are important, as even this case shows. Don-P copied exactly an earlier version of the Wikipedia page to make a page about his Meresha remix. I'm sure if you googled it, you will find that many others did the same (e.g., music bloggers, etc.). Now they can't get info they are looking for about Meresha, which is a public disservice. They may also be left with a sense of HER having done something wrong, which is literally written "unambiguous copyright infringement". That can be toxic for a musician whose whole existence revolves around Copryights.

As to "there is no point in unblocking you", obviously that is not true. The issue of Meresha's page has not been resolved, and a main barrier to resolving is what looks like an arbitrary block of me so that I can't even do the WP:DRV thing. Even in the sock puppet article that was sent, it lists using an account for a specific purpose as perfectly legit. I have learned a bit about how to write in Wikipedia from this dialogue, so in theory I could contribute in the future. If my daughter's account is also blocked - would be good to understand on what grounds.

Are you a check user that can help? Thanks. Would be great to have this block removed and move on to more productive things. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NARAS&action=edit&section=6#

@Anthony Bradbury:  @Bbb23:  @Vanjagenije: Have you read the whole thread?

  @Dlohcierekim:  Hi.  Given the above, why exactly am I still blocked?

Stop pinging people. You have an open unblock request. It will be reviewed in due time. --Yamla (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: There are two issues here: unblocking NARAS and restoring the article. I am uncomfortable with restoring the article because it is almost an exact copy of the original article that was written by a serial sockmaster engaged in undisclosed paid editing. As for unblocking NARAS, looking at their past history of accusations, misunderstandings, and lashings out (not to mention the meat puppetry), I'm not sure this is such a good idea. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly not up to me. Perhaps NeilN's response above mine is helpful with that. Of course, you still bear a username that is the acronym, or former acronym, of an organization. (see discussion may words ago) That leads us back into the WP:PAID editing concerns. To be blunt, it would not be unreasonable to believe that you are part of an organization commissioned in some manner to create the deleted article. Your aggressive approach, taken perhaps as bullying, only deepened the community's curiosity as to what was going on. I mentioned that user name organization issue many words ago. Also, NARAS, you appear to be the sockpuppet of one of the article's creators. As I said before, your earlier arrival hurling thunderbolts, etc, raised some concerns. That resulted in a WP:sockpuppet investigation. You are or are you not one of Meresha's creators? Their boss? Don't answer-- rhetorical question. I do not want to know. @NeilN:. Indeed. I had not given voice to those same concerns. Be all of this as it may, I an not the blocking admin. As this is now a checkuser block, I dare not, even if I agreed with unblocking, unblock. Here is a link to the short version-- Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#CheckUser_blocks. Last I looked, the unblock request has not been declined. Perhaps another reviewing admin will see this all very differently. Sorry, I cannot help you. I am disengaging from this matter because I simply cannot offer any remedy. If any admin wishes to ping me, they certainly can do that. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: @Dlohcierekim:

Who is a blocking admin/ checkuser block I could reach out to, if it isn't one of you two?

Blocking for life for 1 post on an admin Talk page seems beyond harsh, especially as the underlying facts I presented have proven true. I nevertheless offered to delete it, but am blocked from doing so. Does that make sense?

Now I'm also on some investigation list, named a confirmed "bad guy" for life? Really? You 2 guys put me on there right?

To the 2 main questions:

1. Does Meresha justify having a Wikipedia page? All evidence suggests yes. Allmusic for example recently named her album one of the Top 20 in the world with world-famous people like Calvin Harris, Lorde, Demi Lovato, etc [ https://www.allmusic.com/year-in-review/2017/favorite-pop] . I have reviewed the Don-P article based on an old page version vs. the latest screenshot I found of the page, and it differs quite substantially. I am sure over time it would develop further.

There are also pages in other languages like Portuguese. Does it make sense that there isn't one in English?

It feels like Slakr was just looking for any excuse to get rid of a valid page. Why? That can be the starting question.

We all know now that the original reason given for the page deletion - Copyright Infringement - is wrong. That NeilN was your original concern. Still on the link to the page it publicly wrongly says "Copyright Infringement". [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meresha ]. Isn't that fundamentally dishonest for a fact-based organization?

Unless the goal is to erase the Wikipedia English presence of a prominent Indie musician, totally make sense to put back up so that editors can keep it up to date.

2. Should my account (NARAS) be unblocked? It does seems being blocked given the facts of the case seems unjustified. Blocking of my daughter even more so. Beating up on a teenager for defending what they think (know) is right and presenting their opinion, seems really harsh and sort of totalitarian. Don't you think? She is really confused on what is going on, which is upsetting. Is that consistent the Wikipedia philosophy?

I get that I upset Slakr by being too direct, after getting no response from him for weeks. I have 1 total post publicly published, and am ready to do everything asked of me to remedy this, including deleting and/or changing my name, as indicated before. Given that, there is 0 argument to say I did anything wrong of lasting damage to anything.

A family (or even an individual) can have more than one account, especially if one account is used for a special purpose (like this private discussion). 2 family accounts does not mean they are sock puppets. That is in the Wikipedia policy I was sent. I decided myself to get engaged when I saw that Slakr (an admin) was simply ignoring his mistake for weeks, so this new accusation of "Meatpuppery" makes no sense. I'm not part of some large public, respected, yet nefarious organization commissioned and paid to do anything, as suggested above. I'm trying to fix an error a Wikipedia admin made.

Thanks for your time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NARAS&action=edit&section=6#

I asked you to stop pinging people. I have now revoked your access to this talk page. If your existing unblock request is declined (but not before), you are free to use WP:UTRS if you continue to disagree with your block. If your existing unblock request is granted, you will automatically regain access to this page. --Yamla (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]