User talk:Neslgrad09

Welcome!

Hello, Neslgrad09, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Joan king, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! mhking (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Joan king

A tag has been placed on Joan king 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 person or group of people, but 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. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. mhking (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a "Joan king" search on YouTube, but it doesn't appear relevant to anything notable (video). LawHookerSectionB (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to New England School of Law appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New England School of Law

Hopefully, you stop with this edit at New England School of Law. If you go beyond and return to the weasel words you added yesterday, I'm going to have to block you. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of Block

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).

Neslgrad09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am requesting to be unblocked. The user Hiberniantears blocked me for posting substantiated sources to a "New England School of Law" Wiki page. He gave me absolutely no reason or justification as to why a block was warranted, never mind a valid reason as to why the references posted were not warranted for inclusion on the Wiki page, so I am unsure as to why i was blocked, but I will assume that I was blocked for posting what he deemed to be biased entries on the page. Although other users had posted inappropriate or unwarranted references on the page, the log clearly indicates that everything I posted was fully supported by a credible source, and was extremely relevant to the law school's ranking and career statistics. I am hereby requesting to be reinstated with full editing privileges based on the fact that nothing I posted violated any guidelines. I am also requesting that the revisions to the page be restored, and that all edits made by the aforementioned user be reviewed for their merit, especially the removal of statistics and figures that are directly relevant to the law school and provided by unbiased sources.

Decline reason:

You were blocked because you appear to be at Wikipedia solely for the purpose of promoting this school, and not for the purpose of writing an a neutral encyclopedia. I can't see any evidence that you are even interested in writing an encyclopedia with us, so an unblock wouldn't be appropriate. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:10, 22 May 2009 (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.

Second Appeal of Block

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).

Neslgrad09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not at Wikipedia for the sole purpose of promoting the school. In fact, my log indicates that I indeed have tried to create and/or edit unrelated pages. I am interested in using Wikipedia to edit pages with relevant, unbiased, and correctly sourced information. Notwithstanding my contention that nothing I posted was in violation of any guidelines, I apologize for any content that was posted from my account specifically that may or may not have fallen within those guidelines. There were edits made to the page that were outside the guidelines, but I had nothing to do with those. I further promise to only post content that is neutral and informative, and will make a good faith effort to expand my horizons as it pertains to the type of entries I make.

Decline reason:

User is indicating they do not have a secure account. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2009 (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.

To the contrary, that is not what I am indicating at all. What is the purpose of your mission to not allow edits to that page? The page itself references that fact that it reads as an advertisement. I am merely trying to add statistics that are relevant to the school. Is there a way I can submit proposed revision to you and than you can use your almighty administrative discretion to determine whether or not the edits should be incorporated into the page? This is seriously getting ridiculous. The page as it stands now is not representative of the school.

Your above request seems to be saying that you didn't make all of the edits that came from this account; is that not what you meant? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I meant at all. I meant that there were certainly edits being made by others that probably were inflammatory or not properly credited. However, I urge you to review my record. The only edits made by my account were related to the law school's ranking, it's student body composition, and the employment statistics reported by both the law school and ILRG. I understand the desire to ensure that no fraudulent edits are being made to the page, but I would also like to come to some sort of resolution whereby legitimate statistics are approved for inclusion on the page. I think we can all agree that, in its current form, the article does not represent an unbiased description of the school, but rather includes language pulled directly from the law school website and marketing materials. Is there a forum where we can discuss this issue and attempt to come to a resolution so that the page is a neutral representation of the school, including it's supported enrollment, entrance, and employment statistics?

Tell you what, since concerns of my block have been raised to me on my talk page, I'm going to release your block and give you a second chance. Some of your edits were good, such as this one, but other edits, such as this one were not good, as they move the article in the opposite extreme from being an advertisement. You need to strike a neutral balance and avoid weasel words that add a positive or negative value to something that can be presented neutrally (i.e. "The median salary for those graduates who were employed is $50,000 annually" rather than "The median salary for those graduates who were employed was a mere $50,000 annually"). Hiberniantears (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Neslgrad09 was not using weasel words, that would be something like, "Observers note that salaries for New England School of Law graduates are low" without specifying any source. I think you are saying that Neslgrad09 has added inappropriate POV wording. There are some issues involved here. The School competes in Massachusetts against the Ivy League schools, and that may skew statistical comparisons. Fred Talk 00:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I strongly disagree with Fred on this one, but don't really see it as in my best interest to fight him. If "mere $50,000" isn't weasel language (and I say this as a Bostonian who understands that $50k is peasant pay), then I don't know what is. Best of luck to you. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to New England School of Law, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. King of the Arverni (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures

Hey, remember to sign your talk messages with four tildes. The look like this: ~~~~. There's a button when you are editing that looks like a squiggly line, between a cancelled-out W and a dash. You could always just paste them in, if you can't find the button, since there are a couple of other places they're displayed when editing from whence you can just copy them. They sign your name and the date, like this: King of the Arverni (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]