User talk:Rpelton

Trying to get people to review my pages at: [[1]] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rpelton/NCircle

Rpelton (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Rpelton, 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 Article title, 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! Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of NCircle

I have nominated NCircle, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCircle. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!

I'm hoping that someone will get this. I have two pages under my user name that I would like for an admin to look at and tell me if I am on the right track to making these usable wikipedia articles.

how can I do this?Rpelton (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rpelton/AndrewStorms

Hi. It seems you're off to a decent start, but I did notice some issues with this page, most notably the lack of any claim to notability. Quite frankly, if this page were in the mainspace, it might quality for speedy deletion via CSD G7. However, there are a lot of sources, so this seems like it would be easy to fix. My other concerns are mainly minor. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rpelton/NCircle

I left you a short response on the talk page of your proposed NCircle article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Good to see everything's sorted now. If you need any more help feel free to message me on my talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:TK-face-small.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:TK-face-small.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude ► 01:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrew Storms

A tag has been placed on Andrew Storms, 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. Toddst1 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tim D. Keanini

A tag has been placed on Tim D. Keanini, 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. Toddst1 (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI

Hello Rpelton! If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Barocci 09:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ncircle employee?

You accused me of "harassment" for posting your apparent name and title on the discussion page for one of your (since deleted) articles. I'm sorry you feel that way, as I had hoped that the information would prove useful to people in exposing an apparent COI violation. Now that I have a better understanding of the WP COI and outing policies, I just want to ask the directly relevant question instead:

Are you paid by or otherwise affiliated with Ncircle?

I hope you will answer this if you are going to keep creating pages about Ncircle and its employees. But since it seems that all of those pages have now been deleted (by multiple administrators), I hope you will take the hint and turn your WP attention to other topics instead. Thanks! Sfba (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint but I don't feel it necessary to discuss with you anything having to do with my personal life. I have no idea who you are and if you want to have that talk feel free to post your full name and place of employment first, and I'll consider it.

Secondly, the COI guidelines state:

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."

Essentially this comes down to me saying that trying to be inclusive and add content to wikipedia is more important to me than any personal interest or aims of any outside individual, company or group. To which I can say that is most definitely true. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest in this case.

If you took the time to read the articles that I created you'd notice that they ARE objective, state FACTS that have RELIABLE sources backing them up and both on Andrew Storms and TK Keanini's pages focus on the person who has EXTENSIVELY added their expertise and knowledge to an important topic going on in the country today-- or at least CNBC, the New York Times, and other such worldwide and well known news sources found these people to be relevant so the idea that wikipedia does not is laughable.

I appreciate that you were merely trying to point out a COI that you felt existed but in so doing you've managed to get two pages deleted that didn't deserve it and attacked me personally.

Also from the COI page it says: "Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest." So even if you were just doing your duties and attempting to point out a COI you obviously made this attempt in a way that not even wikipedia supports.

In the future maybe sending another user a message, or attempting to have a discussion with them first might be the best approach to do this rather than violating the guidelines you seem to be trying to uphold.

Useful reading

In addition to WP:COI, I suggest you read Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion.

In my case, had I chosen to edit Wikipedia with a variant of my real name, I would expect a minimal level of privacy - especially if I edited information about my employers. As you might have guessed by now, my real name is not Todd and I don't edit anything related to my business, my family, my friends, my friends' or families' businesses. It's a pretty good set of ground rules. Toddst1 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still find it entertaining that you're working under the assumption that my username is a variant of my real name. It's an assumption whose premises should be checked.

Also, I took a long look at the WP:COI page and will highlight a few things that I think show that I was not in violation of that:

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

I can say that I'm trying to add useful information to wikipedia to round out a discussion that needs a bit more dimension to it and that the additions I'm trying to make are not more important to me or an outside interest than they are a desire to make sure that wikipedia is a better place to come get information.

Further on that page:

"When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest."

Interesting how they say that the harassment policy takes precedence over the COI policy as you still found it necessary to delete articles that I worked very hard on that were written well, included useful information, talked about people who are QUITE notable according to MULTIPLE outside sources and have done a lot of different things in one particular realm. To me, it is still obvious that you believe the information you read and took that very much into account when deleting pages, thus violating your own policies on investigating COI problems.

I'm taking both pages to deletion review as you said I should but felt that this should be pointed out to you because it seems you, or someone you know that has influence over your deleting authority, may have a COI themselves.

Thanks Rpelton (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for spam, advertising, or promotion. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. I haven't touched or edited anything else on wikipedia since your actions, other than to start my deletion review and you block me so that I can't even participate in that discussion? Not sure that's how this whole collaborative thing is supposed to work. Seems rather malicious. Rpelton (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Here's more information on this unblock request. The admin who blocked me feels I am putting promotional advertising on wikipedia. I am not. I started a deletion review on two articles this admin deleted and so far it is going in my favor. I would like to participate in this review as well as be able to edit the articles after whatever has been decided has been decided so that I can make the articles into something that is good enough for wikipedia. Without the ability to edit anything I can't participate in the deletion review, contact other admins, or begin to edit anything or improve anything on the articles this admin protests. I don't understand what this admin thinks I have done that would justify taking away my editing rights and would love an explanation. However, first thing, I would really like to be able to participate in my own deletion review. Thanks!

Decline reason:

Will you be able to participate on Wikipedia without touching articles about which you have a conflict of interest (such as an internship at the relevant company)? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:18, 17 November 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.

Am I still fighting against information that was "outed" about my username that wikipedia guidelines tell me to neither confirm nor deny? I really don't understand.

Essentially what you're saying is if I googled your username, jpgordon, anything that came up related to your username at all-despite if it actually has anything to do with who you are-- would then be off limits to you to edit?

I have admins willing to work with me on the two articles that have been deleted and I would like to work with them to get them up. They are BIOS about people not about any company or anything else. What you're saying here is 1. that you believe information that was 'outed' about me, and 2. that I'm not allowed to collaborate with people willing to help me improve articles I've written because you think you know who I am and assume I have an affiliation with a particular company.

Please explain how this has gotten to this point, because I honestly don't understand. I'm not trying to be belligerent, this just seems so illogical when you read the wikipedia guidelines on outing, conflict of interest, speedy deleteion, FairProcess and everything else... the fact that one person came on a page I wrote and decided to attempt to discredit me and instead of having admins HELP me, I have them delete my pages, accuse me of a COI which I've already argued above as to why I don't have one, blocking me from any editing at all, and now another admin assuming that this information is true.

Can you understand my frustration?

Rpelton (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but when you're vigorously trying to insert articles and references to a particular company, and when you're using what appears to be a real name, and when a simple search of that company name and your name shows an intern at that company with the same name, and there's already a history of people at that company doing the exact same thing (you weren't, after all, the first person to create that now-deleted article), we draw upon our experience and we've come to a common conclusion. I paid no attention to any "outing" anyone may have done; I figured it out all on my own. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, quack quack and recorded on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tim D. Keanini

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Tim D. Keanini. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim D. Keanini. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Ncirclehome.jpeg

The file File:Ncirclehome.jpeg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]