User talk:RabidMelon

Welcome!

Hello, RabidMelon, 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 The Real Alice in Wonderland (book), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

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! Ironholds (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Real Alice in Wonderland (book)

A tag has been placed on The Real Alice in Wonderland (book), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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. Ironholds (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSD nomination of Harry M. Rubin

Hi, I've undone your CSD tagging of the Harry M. Rubin article; when you disagree, you discuss, not delete. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 22:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jayron32 01:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat issued here: [1]. If you wish to contact the Wikimedia Foundation regarding a legal matter, please do so as described at this page. Wikipedia itself is not an appropriate venue to discuss legal matters. --Jayron32 01:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove block notices or the rationale for being blocked, while you are currently blocked. If you wish to contest this block, please follow the instructions above. --Jayron32 01:20, 16 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I should be unblocked because I believe I have been blocked for long enough to learn my lesson. Though I am not completely sure of why I was blocked, apparently because of "sockpuppetry" and "legal threats", I have learned that I need to be more careful of what I write. Though you may not believe me, I don't know who "RubinAttorney" is and have no sort of connection with him/her. I believe I edited his/her "legal threat" and because of that, you may have thought that I had written that threat. It is true that I did edit it, but I didn't realize that by doing that I would be blocked. I completely agree that legal threats are bad for Wikipedia and have learned my lesson. I am sorry for any trouble I have caused and from now on will explain what I am writing after I edit and will not edit anything that may cause trouble.

Decline reason:

This is not a retraction of your legal threat. You must unequivocally state that you will not "press charges against Wikipedia and/or any users". Sandstein 06:36, 10 January 2011 (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.

And the legal threat is not even the only issue. Let's start with the contradiction of saying you have learned your lesson and then in the next sentence you say you don't understand why you were blocked. Then you move on to denial of the legal threat and the sockpuppetry, which you appear to have repeatedly engaged in both before and after this account was blocked. You didn't just edit the legal threat, you edit warred to keep it on the article. Hence, even if we were to believe you are not the same person who added it or at least acting in concert with them, you repeatedly added it and enhanced it at the same time, so that's not really an important distinction. Users who have made legal threats cannot be unblocked until they have unambiguously retracted the threat. And on top of that we have the socking and edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am very sorry that I made a legal threat. I take back that threat. I am also very sorry for committing the act of sockpuppetry. It was irresponsible and illegal for me to do that according Wikipedia's rules. I will never do either of these things again. I have learned my lesson. My intentions are to spread the truth on Wikipedia and that is it.

Decline reason:

I believe you are sincere about retracting the legal threat, but your "intentions ... to spread the truth on Wikipedia" suggest to me you have an agenda and a point of view, and that's not what we're looking for. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am very sorry that I made a legal threat. I take back that threat. I am also very sorry for committing the act of sockpuppetry. It was irresponsible and illegal for me to do that according Wikipedia's rules. I will never do either of these things again. I have learned my lesson. From now I will only use one account and will be careful about what I write on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

It's the identical legal threat that was made in December leading to the block of User:RubinAttorney. Go back to that account and use that one. Toddst1 (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2011 (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.

Reminder

One more time: do not remove declined unblock requests! It violates WP:BLANKING. Favonian (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am once again very sorry that I made legal threat. I again take back that legal threat and I'm very sorry I made that threat. I will never do this again. In response to my last denied request to be unblocked, RubinAttorney was a sockpuppet of this account, RabidMelon. I am very sorry that I committed this act and will never do it again. If you could some how check the date these two account were made (RabidMelon and RubinAttorney), you would see that RabidMelon was my original account and was made 2 years prior to the creation of RubinAttorney. Again, I created RubinAttorney as a sockpuppet of RabidMelon. Once again, I am very sorry for the illegal acts I committed according to Wikipedia rules, and will never do the acts of sockpuppetry or making legal threats again.

Decline reason:

You have made it clear that you do not accept the offer initially made by Jayron32 and then supported by two other administrators. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2011 (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.

OK, lets try this: I will consider a conditional unblock under the following stipulations:

You avoid editing any articles related to Harry Rubin in any way.
You agree to maintain a single account (this one) and will not create any more accounts.
You agree to maintain civility at all costs, and will use article talk pages and the dispute resolution process when conflicts arise, and will not threaten other users or Wikipedia when you do not get your way.

If you can agree to these terms, I will unblock you. --Jayron32 20:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32's offer looks good to me. Considering that you clearly have a conflict of interest the requirement for you not to edit "articles related to Harry Rubin in any way" is reasonable. I myself would interpret "related to Harry Rubin in any way" as including all articles about members of the Rubin family. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

First off, I would like you to know that I am a colleague of Mr. Rubin and by recommendation of Toddst1 I am revealing my identity. Since I know Mr. Rubin personally and have worked with him closely for many years now (I realize that writing pages about colleagues is not recommended, but his impact on the computer software business was definitely large enough for Wikipedia. I am sorry for this as well.), I am quite aware of what information on his Wikipedia is false and let me tell you, there is a lot of false information on his Wikipedia page. For example his salary; being the person who helped write and present his contract I know that his salary is 100% false. Just take a look at his employment agreement. The COO and CFO of Atari Interactive doesn't make only $411k per year. All though you probably won't takes this into consideration, his salary was approximately $1.1 million per year and then when he resigned at the end of 2005 his severance was $2.68 million. Another example of false information is Mr. Rubin's involvement with the A&E merger. Mr. Rubin drew up the whole business plan for the merger, but ButtonwoodTree played it down to the phrase "While Rubin was at NBC the merger between...occurred". The faulty information goes on and I will gladly show you this false info. ButtonwoodTree consistently put false information about Mr. Rubin up on his page and I got to a point where I had no idea what to do in order to prove this guy wrong. Because of this I used Wikipedia customer support, but they had no constructive response. Being a fairly new user to Wikipedia (2 years or so), I was unaware of the options to prove my point that the information ButtonwoodTree was putting on Mr. Rubin's Wikipedia was false (which it is!). So I made two dumb decisions, one of them being sock puppetry and the other a legal threat, which of course I take full responsibility for and am very sorry for. I have consulted with Mr. Rubin about his Wikipedia page and the factual holes in it, and he believes that though he could care less about what a "Wikipedia writer" writes about him, he does think that it is immoral to put false information about him up in public on a site that is very popular. To add to this ButtonwoodTree has basically taken a monopoly over the whole article and has allowed nearly no one to add to the page without it being counted as vandalism. He consistently writes phrases that could be considered as "slander", at least in my opinion. At this point, I am writing in desperation because I have tried so many options to try and stop the false information from going up on the page, but none of them have worked. I know that what I did (sock puppetry and legal threats) and what ButtonwoodTree (possible vandalism/slander) is doing is absolutely against what Wikipedia stands for and plead that you stop it before it happens to someone else's Wikipedia. To answer your question I would love to accept your terms of agreement, but that would just allow ButtonwoodTree to do whatever he wants with the page. I hope that you can give me a proactive and responsible response so that we can solve this problem; however we decide to deal with it.

Decline reason:

We'll take that as a "no", then. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:52, 1 May 2011 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I am once again very sorry that I made legal threat. I again take back that legal threat and I'm very sorry I made that threat. I will never do this again. In response to my last denied request to be unblocked, RubinAttorney was a sockpuppet of this account, RabidMelon. I am very sorry that I committed this act and will never do it again. If you could some how check the date these two account were made (RabidMelon and RubinAttorney), you would see that RabidMelon was my original account and was made 2 years prior to the creation of RubinAttorney. Again, I created RubinAttorney as a sockpuppet of RabidMelon. Once again, I am very sorry for the illegal acts I committed according to Wikipedia rules, and will never do the acts of sockpuppetry or making legal threats again. I also will never edit any Rubin article ever again.

Accept reason:

You seem to be accepting the main substance of Jayron32's unblock offer, and I am willing to unblock on the understanding that you have implicitly accepted all of it, and on the understanding that any failure to comply with the terms of that offer may lead to immediate reinstatement of the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Real Alice in Wonderland (book) for deletion

The article The Real Alice in Wonderland (book) is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Real Alice in Wonderland (book) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

Hi, it seems that you or someone you work with might be the subject of one of our articles and are displeased with some of the contents. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for a general overview of ways to get problems fixed (as well as an email address). You can also mention specific problems on Talk: Harry M. Rubin ‎ (if/when you are unblocked) if you want specific mistakes corrected.

The email address is info-en-q@wikimedia.org. The first thing you might be asked to do is to privately establish your identity. Toddst1 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Ernest Morrison

You replaced a non-free image with a free one- that's really not something you should be doing. Non-free content is usable only if it meets all of the non-free content criteria; this includes being irreplaceable by free content. Clearly, if there is already a free image, it is replaceable. I advise you avoid uploading non-free content until you are familiar with non-free content policies. J Milburn (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:A young George Ernest Morrison.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:A young George Ernest Morrison.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have questions, please post them here.
I will automatically remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please ask an admin to turn it off here.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:$1 listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:$1, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. 169.255.184.199 (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]