User talk:PenmanWarrior

Conflict of Interest

First of all, you need to be aware that creating sock puppets to circumvent a temporary block will get you a block indefinitely. If you are the same person as IP editor 69.117.93.145, you need to please stop what you are doing.

Secondly, I'll ask you the same question that was asked of IP editor 69.117.93.145; do you have a conflict of interest in editing the Michele Evans article?

Lastly, the content that you have restored to Michele Evans cites sources that do not even mention her. So they cannot be used to verify anything about her on the article. Citing sources that verify info about other people is pointless if there is nothing cited, other than Evan's own book, to connect them with her. And even if there was, this would constitute original synthesis, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. I'd also question the relevance of any of it. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is sock puppeting. Please refrain from unfounded accusations. The sources do mention her. Your assertion they do not are ludacris. The kindle version of her book appears to be free to download. I have verified what you claim to be untrue. PenmanWarrior (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I'm Chaotic Enby. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Michele Evans have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted documented facts takes more than your assertion they are not constructive. I am allowing you to explain your position in detail before you are reported/warned. PenmanWarrior (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Michele Evans. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michele Evans (February 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Muboshgu was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The same article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michele Evans and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html was not just a passing mention. Was a feature. Many other articles exist as well. Please review! PenmanWarrior (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also: https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ PenmanWarrior (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PenmanWarrior! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted there. Please revise as this was done erroniously. The following are just a few articles about Evans. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html was not just a passing mention. Was a feature. Many other articles exist as well. Please review! PenmanWarrior (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also: https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ PenmanWarrior (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu would not have been notified of your reply to this message as you did not ping them, but I have now replied to your thread on the AfC Helpdesk. Qcne (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kathleen's bike:I advise you to stop cyber/wiki stalking me. Deleting my edits on Wikipedia Rikers Island? This will be addressed and you are given notice. PenmanWarrior (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @PenmanWarrior, please note that legal threats are prohibited on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne legal threats????? Please stop accusing me of things I did not do. This is getting absurd. I was told to give notice by Wikipedia talk:Stalking PenmanWarrior (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That page hasn't been updated in eighteen years and is no longer in force. I will note that @Kathleen's bike did not stalk you. Qcne (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that she did. Please point me to a page that says the content at Wikipedia talk:Stalking is no longer valid. PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page now soft re-directs to Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, which I am sure you can tell as that is what it states on the article page and not the article Talk page. Qcne (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing research. That is what came up on google. The harassment claim is also processing. Thank You! PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Michele Evans

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 Draft:Michele Evans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it 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 "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. ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this contest button. I don't even see a speedy deletion tag. I think it's been established, the person who declined this draft, did not even read the sources, by his own admission. The newly added content is a significant source and independent. Thank You PenmanWarrior (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AFC comment template is for reviewers to explain their reasoning regarding the draft, not for the editor to comment about reviewers of the draft. That's what the draft talk page is for. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DMacks (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks:??? Disruptive edits ??? Please explain PenmanWarrior (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: Please direct me to this 'Fluff Article' definition you are talking about. Is there some source you are drawing your conclusion from that I am not aware of? PenmanWarrior (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FLUFF. ''Flux55'' (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well then if that's DMacks source of why he is calling the Rocky Mountain News article Fluff, then clearly we have resolved it is not Fluff.

----

@Flux55:I disagree that the article from the Rocky Mountain News is a fluff article. A fluff article is one that is superficial, trivial, or irrelevant to the topic. However, the article from the Rocky Mountain News is relevant, informative, and substantial. It provides significant coverage of Evans's career. It also gives some background information about her life and education. The article is not superficial or trivial, as it does not focus on gossip, rumors, or personal details that are unrelated to her work. It is not irrelevant, as it shows how Evans achieved success and recognition in a competitive and demanding field. Therefore, the article from the Rocky Mountain News is not a fluff article, but a reliable and independent source. PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As another reviewer I agree with @Flux55 that the Rocky Mountain News article is "fluff". There is no indication of notability to be derived from it - it could be used to cite some of her early career information but cannot be used as a source by itself to show notability. Qcne (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QcneI'm not sure @Flux55 said it was fluff or he was just pointing to what @DMacks refused to answer. At this point, I have to note you as a hostile commentator. In addition to you incessantly posting to my talk page, you suggested I should be barred from writing about a subject simply because you did not like my valid question to you. Can you please place your energy and focus somewhere other than on me? Thank you! PS. Nobody says the source was used by itself. Currently, there are 58 sources on the page. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I'll leave you alone. Good luck with your draft. Qcne (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk-pages of blocked editors are only for use to appeal the block, not to continue discussions of article content (which I note continues the CIR/IDHT that led to the block). Therefore, I will not be responding to any of that latter sort of question at this time. DMacks (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michele Evans (February 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jamiebuba was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michele Evans and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jamiebuba (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

This came out of nowhere.

I have been adding valid great sources. 
Totally confused here as to why adding the New York Times and Rocky Mountain News is considered disruptive.PenmanWarrior (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This came out of the WP:ANI thread. If you do not understand why your action are disruptive, there are no grounds for lifting the block. PhilKnight (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2024 (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.

@PhilKnight: --- I don't understand for the following reasons:

The new article written yesterday by The New York Times is a significant development which warrants a revisit and provides sufficient evidence of the subjects notability for Wikipedia standards. The article meets the following criteria for a reliable and independent source:

- It provides significant coverage of Evans and her personal story as a former inmate at Rikers Island who became an author. It describes the main themes and messages of her book, the challenges and opportunities she faced in writing and publishing it etc.

- It is reliable, as The New York Times is a well-known and respected newspaper that has a high editorial standard and a reputation for accuracy and integrity. It is not a self-published or questionable source that lacks credibility or verification.

- It is independent of the subject, as it is not connected to Evans or her book in any way. It is not a press release, a review, an interview, or a promotional piece that is intended to endorse or advertise her book. It is a neutral and objective report that presents both the positive and negative aspects of her story and her work.

- It provides photos taken by the New York Times which are prominently featured at the beginning and throughout the article.

- It is secondary, as it is not a primary source that directly reflects Evans's own views or experiences. It is a journalistic article that analyzes and evaluates her book and her story from an external perspective, using multiple sources of information and evidence.

The article from The New York Times passes the notability check for Wikipedia inclusion, and can be used as a reliable and independent source to support the creation or improvement of a Wikipedia article about Evans or her book.

This new Rocky Mountain News article supports Michele Evans's Wikipedia notability in the following ways:

- It provides significant coverage of Evans's career.

- It is reliable, as it is from the Rocky Mountain News, a reputable newspaper that was published in Denver, Colorado from 1859 to 2009. It is not a self-published or questionable source that lacks credibility or verification.

- It is independent of the subject, as it is not connected to Evans in any way. It is not a press release, a review, or a promotional piece that is intended to endorse or advertise her work. It is a neutral and objective report.

- It is secondary, as it is not a primary source that directly reflects Evans's own views or experiences. It is a journalistic article.

I disagree that the article from the Rocky Mountain News is a fluff article. A fluff article is one that is superficial, trivial, or irrelevant to the topic. However, the article from the Rocky Mountain News is relevant, informative, and substantial. It provides significant coverage of Evans's career. It also gives some background information about her life and education. The article is not superficial or trivial, as it does not focus on gossip, rumors, or personal details that are unrelated to her work. It is not irrelevant, as it shows how Evans achieved success and recognition in a competitive and demanding field. Therefore, the article from the Rocky Mountain News is not a fluff article, but a reliable and independent source.

In addition the complaints of me simply responding to alerts I get are being phrased as me doing something wrong. As a new editor, there are many things I am unaware of, as to be expected. A certain amount of consideration should be afforded me, instead of attacking me and making it into something it's not. How am I supposed to know responding to an alert I get is frowned upon??? I ask a simple valid question and an editor decides they don't like it, therefore I am branded as doing something wrong?? I'm just lost here. Am I not supposed to say anything???

The assertion by the user who launched the complaint about me you mention, that they thought they were 'done with this' is quite disturbing and reveals the users serious bias that the subject could never accomplish anything in the future. This is not a trivial thing!

Luckily we live in a time of technology! I have run the new articles provided against the posted rules of wikipedia, especially the notability criteria, claimed to be missing. Every time, the unbiased technology concludes the two new articles pass this criteria and even list out the reasons why they resolve the notability complaint lodged against this wiki page.

See WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS and WP:TOOSOON please! Additonally, try to contribute elsewhere after your block. Just because she may be notable enough for a Wikipedia article in the future doesn't mean she needs one now.''Flux55'' (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign to eliminate Michele Evans from Wikipedia

Recently became aware of multiple editors attempting to eliminate Ms. Evans from Wikipedia. This must stop! Will be adding details. PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kathleen's bike: violates Wikipedia standards again: WP:BLUDGEON, edit warring, disruptive editing

While technically not done within the 24hr timeframe, the essence of, three-revert rule was also enacted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1196841532

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1208941127

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209368498

Kathleen's bike claimed "See guidance at WP:ON:US regarding the repeated restoration of content whose inclusion has been disputed" However only one restoration had been made and the inclusion of this book in Rikers Island had never been disputed.

Kathleen's bike also recommended deletion of Michele Evans

"Delete Escape Orbit summarises things easily enough, fails notability guidelines at the present time. Kathleen's bike (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)"

@Escape Orbit: comments Kathleen's bike was referring to: "Author. Self published only, so unlikely to be notable Software Engineer. Not notable. Creating Tiger Woods' website is not sufficient, and source cited does not support this claim. Sports Reporter. Possibly, but entirely unsourced and almost purposely vague. A single op-ed in The New York Times written by her."

Escape Orbit continues: "Again we are agreed. The sources currently on the article are not adequate in demonstrating notability. So I urge you to find the existence of suitable sources, and the matter will be resolved. Others have tried and failed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)"

Kathleen's bike herself admits Escape Orbit sumarises things. Escape Orbit said this would be resolved. His issues were addressed with the introduction of the new articles:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb

https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/

It is resolved. Escape Orbit has been asked to stick by his word and resolve as promised, but as of this writing, has not.

In addition Kathleen's bike violated Harrasment

Hounding WP:HOUND WP:HOUNDING WP:WIKIHOUNDING WP:FOLLOWING Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Kathleen's bike engaged in "an attempted outing". Stated belief of editor's identity/real name and even opened a complaint to do so in order to enhance this alleged outing.

WP:ANI "Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)"

On the subject of not sticking to promises:

@Qcne: after promising to leave alone, comes back next day and threatens to decline article Michele Evans:

"I have to note you as a hostile commentator. In addition to you incessantly posting to my talk page, you suggested I should be barred from writing about a subject simply because you did not like my valid question to you. Can you please place your energy and focus somewhere other than on me? Thank you! PS. Nobody says the source was used by itself. Currently, there are 58 sources on the page. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)"

"Sure thing, I'll leave you alone. Good luck with your draft. Qcne (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

"However, @Theroadislong, I am minded to reject if you agree? Qcne (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)"

@Qcne: continues his campaign after promising to leave alone. Now attempting to be only authoritative voice on subject after having already been noted as hostel to subject.

"I may have time to categorically review every single reference on Friday in your Draft and write up my findings, which would then hopefully put to bed this entire issue as either a Yes She is WikiNotable or No She is Not WikiNotable and then, either way, no more of your time or Wikipedia volunteer time will be spent discussing this. Qcne (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)"

@Theroadislong: declines article, refuses to answer requests to address major sources, goes back add multiple non-major comments to article, finally admits did not read sources and then re-declines article after twice insisting he wasn't going to review again:

"Sorry I have no idea what you are referring to, you can submit for review and another reviewer will take a look, I will not review again. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)"

Theroadislong refuses/won't/doesn't respond to requests to address major source and instead goes back and adds comments to article:

'Comment: Ridiculous weird content about distant relatives and ancestors is not remotely helpful. Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)'
'Comment: As noted elsewhere "Her software engineering does not make her notable. Her self-published books do not make her notable. Her filming work does not seem to make her notable. Her personal life (death of daughter, grandfather, lawsuit, etc) do not make her notable." Theroadislong (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)'
'Comment: There are still 17 links to her own books and Amazon profiles which are NOT required and other sources which do not mention her, hack it back to the reliable independent sources and report on what they say. Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)'
'Comment: A large number of these sources make no mention of Evans whatsoever, references to her own work are not required and see WP:REFBOMBING. Theroadislong (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)'

Finally, Theroadislong admits:

"I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)"

"Ok, yet another editor admitting they did not read the sources before declining the article. A pattern has emerged. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)"

Theroadislong then goes back and declines the article after saying twice he would not review the article again.

"Submission declined on 21 February 2024 by Theroadislong (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted. If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. Where to get help How to improve a draft Improving your odds of a speedy review Editor resources Declined by Theroadislong 3 hours ago. Last edited by Theroadislong 2 seconds ago. Reviewer: Inform author."

User talk:69.117.93.145 was blocked for edit warring things/edits involving Michele Evans by:

"Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)"

I would ask @Daniel Case: to equally block Kathleen's bike for edit warring and violating other Wikipedia standards.

While you are doing that a WP:BLUDGEON review is warranted for @Theroadislong: and @Qcne: and any other actions I may not be aware of. Also please advise how to handle/report Kathleen's bike for the above-stated behavior as I am a new editor.

@Caeciliusinhorto-public: minimizes/reduces Evans contribution to Rikers Island Covid-19 section

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209141675

Curiously ref to Evans' New York Times is deleted in Rikers Island

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209359829

There is a lot of incoherent grumbling here which nobody will read, you are free to take any gripes to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. To be clear I have only reviewed your draft ONCE. Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherent? I's all just copied and pasted content from other sources. Now it appears you are personally attacking. Maybe 1% commentary on my part. If you have only reviewed once, why is article showing declined again, after I resubmitted it yesterday? Also why would the time stamp be you declining 3 hours ago? since you initially declined yesterday? Please help me understand as I am new. If it is explainable, I will remove the associated content. If nobody will ready this, why did you make accusations on Wikipedia:ANI about it? Make it make sense please. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two editor's decline article and subsequently admit to not having read substantial sources

@Muboshgu: "PenmanWarrior, that NY Times piece from yesterday would add to her argument for passing WP:GNG, but I cannot tell how much as it is behind a paywall and I am not a subscriber. However, the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans appears to be overwhelming and I doubt one new piece will change that. Since the draft is basically identical to the deleted article, save for a sentence or two based on that new NYT article, I think it would be inappropriate to accept the draft. If you believe that the new NYT article changes things, make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)"[reply]

@Theroadislong: "I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)"[reply]

I am a new editor but I can't imagine declining an article without reading MAJOR SOURCES is appropriate. Someone please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenmanWarrior (talk • contribs) 14:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk I see you added an unsigned template but did not address any concerns or respond to advice. Please do so.. Thank you! PenmanWarrior (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continued campaign in WP:ANI:

"More WP:BATTLEGROUND editing here [165] today. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)"

"Can I propose a motion to block as WP:NOTHERE? Qcne (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)"

"@Theroadislong @Qcne. I would once again ask the continued harassment be discontinued. Condensing facts into one comprehensive space and asking for advice on how to proceed is not any of the above implied/accused/linked circumstances. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)"

PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you concentrate on addressing the issues pointed out in the reviewer comments on the draft and stop with the conspiracy theories about a non existent "Campaign to eliminate Michele Evans from Wikipedia". Theroadislong (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong Labeling conspiracy theory is dismissive of valid issues raised here. Concentrate on your comments? You completely ignored three very substantial sources and admitted to not reading. How am I supposed to concentrate on comments that don't exist? Nobody will address the three new substantial sources. Please do so now so I can address as you suggest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb

https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/

Although it would be ideal for you to read, the fact these stories lead with photos/captions/excerpts of Evans is enough to know they are not mere mentions. You can see that much regardless of paywall! PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michele Evans (February 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michele Evans and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. At this point there are 59 cited sources including major sources. PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that is part of the problem, a large number of these sources make no mention of Evans whatsoever, references to her own work are not required and see WP:REFBOMBING. Theroadislong (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed your concern and republished it. It's interesting to note a closing of the deletion review was done with fictious statements/reasons that there had been a topic ban placed on me. Wich wasn't true, since I've since republished it after addressing your concerns. Please advise how I should proceed to handle this inappropriate situation. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have no idea what you are referring to, you can submit for review and another reviewer will take a look, I will not review again. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean you have no idea what I'm referring to? I'm replying to your comment. I'm curious why instead of responding and choosing to advise on a valid situation in which I asked for your help, you instead chose to inundate the article in question with comments. You refuse to acknowledge the major sources that have been provided and do make her notable. You complained about too many references with links that do make her notable. Instead of trying to pick apart the article with minor stuff, please address the major stuff that was requested of you and again asked here. I have been accused of unwillingness to work with editors and I believe this reflects the untruthfulness of that assertion. I am new. I am asking for advice. PenmanWarrior (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Michele Evans has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Michele Evans. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Address major sources please as you have not done so. PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Michele Evans has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Michele Evans. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Address major sources please as you have not done so. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Michele Evans has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Michele Evans. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Address major sources please as you have not done so. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging @Theroadislong who would not get notified of this reply otherwise.

However, @Theroadislong, I am minded to reject if you agree? Qcne (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne I have already noted you as hostel towards this issue. Please refer to yesterday's conversation. You promised to stop and leave me alone. Any other editor, please help and please advise on how to handle this so I don't get accused of doing it wrong! PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't argue with rejection. The article is not improving, ridiculous weird content about distant relatives and ancestors, refbombing and failure to pass any flavour of WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong Please answer repeated requests. Also ref bombing definition could be argued and was addressed to suit your complaint. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The best sources seem to be the new articles in the New York Times and The Times. Both of their coverage of Evans seems to primarily be quoted directly from her own statements, though, so I'm not convinced that they are the independent sources needed for GNG. If it were to go into mainspace, it could do with some serious trimming to focus on the actual subject of the article: of the eight sentences discussing the death of Evans' niece, for instance, six of them have apparently nothing to do with Evans Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim away. Nobody is stopping you. It seems Evans' controversial status seems to be the issue here at this point. Major concerns have been addressed.

"Again we are agreed. The sources currently on the article are not adequate in demonstrating notability. So I urge you to find the existence of suitable sources, and the matter will be resolved. Others have tried and failed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)"[reply]

@Escape Orbit asked me to find suitable sources, which I did. He declared the matter will be resolved. Escape Orbit. I ask you to stick by your word. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Sure thing, I'll leave you alone. Good luck with your draft. Qcne (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Michele Evans has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Michele Evans. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the content of Evans' novel seems inappropriate. Perhaps reading the novel and realizing this info is gleaned directly from a published source would benefit an editor before looking ill-prepared. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I could point out Wikipedia violations. Hammering away instead of answering valid questions in regards to major sources provided.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yet another editor admitting they did not read the sources before declining the article. A pattern has emerged. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your question on appeal

Hello PenmanWarrior,

I noticed that you left this comment on the deletion review noticeboard after your request for a review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans was closed with the deletion endorsed by the community. Your comment asks How do I appeal?, saying that you have found additional sourcing.

As it stands, that discussion was your appeal, and your appeal was declined by the community. I note that you are active at Draft:Michele Evans, where you are working to try to bring the article up to standards. What would help the reviewers on that draft might be something simple: if you were to go to the draft's talk page and list the three best sources you have for demonstrating significant coverage of this individual by independent reliable sources, along a brief (two-to-three succinct sentences) explanation on why you think those sources demonstrate significant coverage, that would be helpful. If all three of the best sources are in the context of one event, you may want to include a fourth source that provides significant coverage in some other context.

I can't guarantee that the article will be accepted, but structuring your arguments in this way will be more clear to reviewers than they are presently.

Cheers,

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk A speedy delete was used to circumvent the new substantial source being addressed. Time was not being wasted as good reliable sources were being addressed. This was an abuse of process and the article never got a chance to be properly considered.

Will add your suggestions to the article's talk page. Thank You. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a speedy deletion as having been used on the article; the only deletion log for the article I can find is this one, which clearly states that this was done pursuant to consensus in an Articles for Deletion discussion. The deleted article's talk page was speedily deleted as a page dependent on the deleted article (see: Talk pages with no corresponding subject page), but that speedy deletion seems to be correct.

Is there some other page I am missing here? I've looked through your deleted contributions, and I can't find any page that you have edited and was deleted except for the article at Michele Evans. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the review page: "

Michele Evans – Summarily endorsed. Nominator's blocked for DE and the community's enacting a topic ban, with, at the time of typing, unanimous support. I'm invoking the fourth limb of "Speedy closes", above, to close this without wasting further time.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)"[reply]

PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Close is what it is called apparently. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even get a chance to explain the situation for the review. They blocked me, refused to give reasons as their were none, and then closed the review. You will note the lengthy explanation I responded to on the block notice above, which was the only thing I was allowed to respond to at the time. You can't call it a review and not let the requester present reasons for the review. That's an abuse of process. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You had the chance to present your reasons in the nomination statement you made, and you did present them. Nobody was convinced. You were also clearly told why you were blocked. Look, PenmanWarrior, Wikipedia is really attractive to people who want articles to exist for their own personal reasons, and we've had to develop ways of dealing with such people very promptly and efficiently. If we didn't do that our readers would never be able to find anything useful because of all the spam. I'm sorry if this makes you unhappy but you aren't going to be an exception.—S Marshall T/C 16:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No at all. I did not get the chance. I was gathering reasons/getting ready to respond when I was blocked. My initial opening simply had links to two sources. There was no detailing of those links or case made as to why the appeal should be approved. I had been accused of bludgeoning before and was waiting to listen to others' positions so I could respond only once. As it is, there are 3 new sources. Closing the appeal the way you did is an abuse of process. Your rant on personal reasons is also inappropriate. I've spent a lot of time crafting this article. My time is just as valuable as anyone else's. No spam. Please address the following very significant sources.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb

https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/

I can't imagine unfounded accusations wouldn't be frowned upon! PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block never explained when asked.

"@DMacks:??? Disruptive edits ??? Please explain PenmanWarrior (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)"[reply]

Wikipedia says blockers should respond to the request.

I made no disruptive edits and detailed extensively the lack of offense in the block announcement above. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being a single purpose account, continued disruptive editing, refusal to accept advice from experienced editors verging on battleground mentality.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Daniel (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Oh the irony I was blocked for simply following the advice/instructions of an experienced editor. "you are free to take any gripes to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. To be clear I have only reviewed your draft ONCE. Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" However in doing as instructed, I got blocked. I was told I was free to take this issue to the very place I did. And subsequently got blocked for. "This thread was the final straw. I'd been monitoring this issue for the past couple of days. I have indefinitely blocked the editor - "Single purpose account, continued disruptive editing, refusal to accept advice from experienced editors verging on battleground mentality". As always, welcome review of the block from the community here. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" And also following advice of another experienced editor: "I note that you are active at Draft:Michele Evans, where you are working to try to bring the article up to standards. What would help the reviewers on that draft might be something simple: if you were to go to the draft's talk page and list the three best sources you have for demonstrating significant coverage of this individual by independent reliable sources, along a brief (two-to-three succinct sentences) explanation on why you think those sources demonstrate significant coverage, that would be helpful. If all three of the best sources are in the context of one event, you may want to include a fourth source that provides significant coverage in some other context. I can't guarantee that the article will be accepted, but structuring your arguments in this way will be more clear to reviewers than they are presently. Cheers, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" My advice taking is evidenced in me doing as instructed by @Red-tailed hawk: in the Draft:Michele Evans talk page:[reply]

Article now sufficiently sourced.[edit]

The following substantial, independent, secondary sources have been located and clear up expressed concerns about existing sources: * https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb * https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ ----The new articles written in the last couple of days by The New York Times and The Times (London) are a significant development that warrant revisiting and provide sufficient evidence of the subject's notability for Wikipedia standards. The articles meets the following criteria for a reliable and independent source: - They provide significant coverage of Evans and her personal story as a former inmate at Rikers Island who became an author. It describes the main themes and messages of her book, the challenges and opportunities she faced in writing and publishing it etc. - They are reliable, as The New York Times is a well-known and respected newspaper that has a high editorial standard and a reputation for accuracy and integrity. It is not a self-published or questionable source that lacks credibility or verification. - They are independent of the subject, as it is not connected to Evans or her book in any way. It is not a press release, a review, an interview, or a promotional piece that is intended to endorse or advertise her book. It is a neutral and objective report that presents both the positive and negative aspects of her story and her work. - They provide photos taken by the New York Times which are prominently featured at the beginning and throughout the article. - They are secondary, as it is not a primary source that directly reflects Evans's own views or experiences. It is a journalistic article that analyzes and evaluates her book and her story from an external perspective, using multiple sources of information and evidence. The articles from The New York Times and The Times (London) pass the notability check for Wikipedia inclusion and can be used as a reliable and independent source to support the creation or improvement of a Wikipedia article about Evans or her book. ----This new Rocky Mountain News article supports Michele Evans's Wikipedia notability in the following ways: - It provides significant coverage of Evans's career. - It is reliable, as it is from the Rocky Mountain News, a reputable newspaper that was published in Denver, Colorado from 1859 to 2009. It is not a self-published or questionable source that lacks credibility or verification. - It is independent of the subject, as it is not connected to Evans in any way. It is not a press release, a review, or a promotional piece that is intended to endorse or advertise her work. It is a neutral and objective report. - It is secondary, as it is not a primary source that directly reflects Evans's own views or experiences. It is a journalistic article. PenmanWarrior (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC) -------- How can I move on to other subjects, when this one keeps getting targeted. Just because I am working on one thing at a time doesn't mean I didn't plan on doing other things in the future. Not everybody multi-tasks. There was no battle ground mentality. I raised valid concerns as instructed. I found out about this block when I went to publish as @Theroadislong suggested. I have continuously asked for advice. This once again is an attempt to prevent the now sourced article from getting out. [reply]

Decline reason:

Not only does this fail to address the reasons for the block, but it also repeats much of what led to the block, thereby confirming that the block should stay. JBW (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (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.

PenmanWarrior (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the state of the article in question when the review process was high-jacked: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Michele_Evans&diff=prev&oldid=1209361929

This is the state now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Michele_Evans&diff=prev&oldid=1209614761

As clearly evidenced, all references/wording to relevant situations that make her notable according to Wikipedia standards have been removed and are now only sources buried in references.

A section was added about Journalism but didn't mention her biggest accomplishment in the New York Times. And oddly put software engineering under Journalism.

In reading this article you would never know without fine-tooth examination, that Evans was published in the Times, or that her book was featured along with Evans herself, in both the New York Times and The Times in London. Those are significant accomplishments and deserve to be known.

In addition, every mention of the contents of her novels has been removed.

Her blood family was removed. Her husband is mentioned but not her niece, who was removed and whose death was prominent. Her husband is not notable.

Again, I am a new editor who has been following many editors' instructions and keep getting pinged for it.

Even with the article as it stands right now, it meets Wikipedia standards. We will see if anybody publishes it, as non-biased editors would do.

PenmanWarrior (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unlikely for any other Editors to pick up an unsubmitted draft as we have 28,764 unsubmitted drafts and it is doubtful any uninvolved Editor would go searching through it for drafts to edit. Unmodified drafts will be deleted after six months.

I'd be still willing to go through each source one-by-one to settle this Notability question once and for all, even diff ID 1209361929 which you state was the last version before "hijack" (your words, not mine). Qcne (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the thing. It was never about me. I kept following advice. I raised valid concerns. Sure maybe my communication style was not appreciated but how is someone going to block me from Wikipedia completely simply for doing what someone told me to do. Makes no sense. My issues were never addressed. The validity of the New Sources were never discussed. Nothing. It's crazy. I could see if people were discussing the new significant finds and additions and I got testy but they weren't. The discussion never happened. They were blocked. Prevented. Not allowed to happen at all. I got blocked and painted in a bad light. If there is an issue, let me address it. Blocked on two occasions? The first time might be a mistake, but the second wasn't.

The sources have been dwindled down to 13 from 59, so I ask in doing your review, do so without all the removal: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Michele_Evans&diff=prev&oldid=1209361929 PenmanWarrior (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne PenmanWarrior (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne Also, the editors who took the time to edit the article would be appropriate to submit as they have already invested and are aware. The history shows who they are. There were several. PenmanWarrior (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Declined for reasons stated : "Not only does this fail to address the reasons for the block, but it also repeats much of what led to the block, thereby confirming that the block should stay. JBW (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" ________ Reasons for the block were in fact addressed. They were specific. ________ "Not only does this fail to address the reasons for the block" rebuttal: #refusal to accept advice from experienced editors verging on battleground mentality ## Followed advice of @Theroadislong to submit grievance ## Followed advice of @Red-tailed hawk #continued disruptive editing ## Have not edited the article since yesterday around 2pm and only did so to appease @Theroadislong concern (which also demonstrates accepting advice and teamwork) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Michele_Evans&diff=prev&oldid=1209352708 #single purpose account ## Just because I am working on one thing at a time doesn't mean I didn't plan on doing other things in the future. Not everybody multi-tasks. "repeats much of what led to the block" #Raised valid concerns as/where instructed. Incorrectly interpreted as battleground and was blocked. #Gave examples of my cooperation. Incorrectly labeled as repeating. ____________________________ Summary #Pointing out facts is allowed. #Raising issues also allowed/suggested. #Deletion review high-jacked. #Validity of sources still not discussed. #Consistently worked and implemented editors advice. PenmanWarrior (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Enough. Its clear to all you haven't read a word of what we've written to help you. As a result of your IDHT mindset, I've removed your ability to edit this talk page. I'm not going to spend the rest of eternity swatting down you block appeals because you can accept that you've lost. We've all get better things to do than coddle you. Now either read the guide to appealing block and address you block correctly, or find some place else to have your 2-year old temper tandrum, because it will not be on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:26, 23 February 2024 (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.

I know you feel like you have been thrown under the bus despite receiving a lot of good advice. However, as you say [your] communication style was not appreciated, and I believe that is the primary reason for your block. Not every statement needs to be backed up in triplicate with bold italic and underline. Hell, before you were blocked I spent some time cleaning up the draft with the intention of getting it closer to something that could be approved, and instead all I get from you is a claim that I "hijacked" it. Now, I take no offence to this, as I have been editing Wikipedia for over a decade now and have a pretty good idea of what is and isn't acceptable in a draft; I was hoping to work with you to get it accepted but until you change how you interact with others that might not happen.

Now, on to the subject of getting unblocked - blaming others will not get you unblocked. You are the primary reason why your account is blocked, even if others made you mad or upset or said things that you just had to get back at them for. If you do decide to file an unblock request, focus on what you will do differently, and how you will work towards improving Wikipedia. There is no rush to do this - your draft is not going anywhere for at least six months, so maybe take a week or two to think and reflect on what's happened here before asking for another unblock (which, it appears you were not informed, will take place through WP:UTRS). Primefac (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Please do not email other editors asking them to make edits on your behalf while blocked. That is a violation of the block policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. You sent me links with arguments for the changes you'd like to be made, and stated As a responsible editor, I would ask you to rectify this situation. That is explicitly asking me to edit on your behalf. And now you're trying to claim I didn't ask you to edit anything, I asked to rectify the situation, which could include many actions. which is just prevaricating. I am blocking your ability to email me, and have asked admins to revoke your ability to use the email function. It is clear you still do not understand Wikipedia's rules, and have no business editing this site. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I received the same email a little over an hour ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me three. Qcne (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me also. I'd suggest any UTRS appeal can be dismissed pretty quickly based on this additional aggravating factor. Daniel (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry but I can't perform edits, especially controversial ones, on behalf of blocked/banned editors ("proxy editing"). You were essentially trying to get other editors to do the kind of disruptive edits that got you blocked from editing. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Black Kite has taken the obvious action of disabling email for this user. DMacks (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Michele Evans

Hello, PenmanWarrior. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Michele Evans".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]