User talk:Stevonmfl

Hello, Stevonmfl! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Gang has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): googlepages\.com (links: http://forcesgangstoriots.googlepages.com/home).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Gang, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. This information appears to be your original research using your self-published website as the source. Please do not readd the information unless you cad add a reliable source for this information. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You have violated the three-revert rule on Gang. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. 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 a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Hi, you may have a conflict with the article you have been editing (Gang). This is being discussed at the conflict of interest noticeboard. [1] Your comments would be welcome in particular as to whether you have any affiliation with the author of the book you are citing. Thank You Smartse (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My issue is not whether your book should be included in the article per se but that you should not be adding it as you clearly have a conflict of interest. If the information in your book is suitable for inclusion then I'm sure at some point someone will get along to adding it to the article. Until then I'm afraid you'll have to wait. I/we are not "showing a double standard by allowing Dr. Stith to mention her book" because as far as I know she has not added the information to Gang herself. Instead someone has read her book and thought that it is worthy for inclusion. Smartse (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

I am responding to glib and borderline insulting statements and unwarranted treatment by your people re: this most important topic. Please understand there is a huge battle raging between those of us who believe gangs to be a symptom of societal machinations (regardless of country) and therefore preventable and solvable and those who would use force and incarceration on increasingly younger ages to no avail. I have worked over 30 years in this field and the book 12 years to bring this new information to light and it is being extremely well received. More people need to know it is available as the reliable alternative. The reviewer/editor seems to dish insults rather than review content. Forgive me if I seem to have little patience for what is occurring here. The seriousness of the subject affects my toleration level. I request this matter be reviewed by a higher and hopefully more objective and less personality driven reviewer than those who have been deleting this work. If Wikipedia is thus managed and controlled, perhaps it is not as open and available to new ideas as advertised.

You asked for it. I am trying to get beyond your personality and assist the Wikipedia process. Also, I have had first hand experience beyond the narrow focus of a law enforcment view. And I served on more and larger and comprehensive task forces during the period and the model of DOJ targeting is MY MODEL! I was gang czar in Los Angeles for 10 years during the 1980's and experienced the riots. And operated (SUCCESSFUL) anti-gang ops since 1975. You denigrate my work and expertise and it is not at all appreciated. Stevonmfl (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't denigrated your work. I was very explicit when I said "I actually agree with most of the info you posted" and "I think the material is valid and would be educational to many reader". What part of that was "denigrating" Steve?

I find it odd that you tell me I have "no expertise" in the topic (without even knowing who you are talking to) and restort to name calling (smart alec), but worry about my statement that you study while I do. For that matter, I could turn it around and talk about how you keep "denegrating" the "narrow" law enforcement view. Once again, in my case, you speak about that which you do not know. I'm familiar with the other stakeholders role and personally am involved not only in the enforcement end, but the intervention and prevention ends through my volunteer work.

Again you resort to being condescending. I personally don't care how big or how many task forces you've served on. I can think of people who served as President of the United States that I don't think much of.

You are taking this personally, which shows why the COI policy exists. The "evidence" you've presented have been a link to a letter you wrote to the Naples Daily News, a link to Thomas that doesn't work, and a link to a self-published book. Surely as an academic, you are familiar with the concept of peer review. That is essentially how Wikipedia works. Citing coverage of the material by OTHERS is how it works. Surely with all the coverage you claim, there must be some working links to articles not written BY YOU that we can use.

You want to appeal to a "higher authority"? Sounds like "I want to talk to your supervisor". Guess what? That's already happening. The COI Noticeboard IS a "higher authority". Experienced editors and administrators look at the issue and render opinions.

I had every intention of trying to assist you as much as I could to try to get the info in. To try to help you navigate the rules and policies. I immediately defended your intentions when another editor suggested you be blocked from editing. But I also (incorrectly) figured that at some point, you'd drop the attitude and decide that the material was more important than your ego. Maybe someone else will decide to do that because your smugness isn't making me feel very helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly as a warning to both of you, you seem to be moving towards personal attacks (WP:PA). Remember to discuss the content of edits and not the personalities/expertise (or lack of) of editors. The issue at stake here is conflict of interest and nothing else. As Stevonmfl has admitted he is the author of the book of which he has posted information from. This clearly contravenes COI guidelines about posting information you have written yourself - admittedly it is not forbidden but will always draw attention from other editors as it may not represent a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). I understand you Steve, in that you feel that the Gang article is currently not up to date and that you have expertise that may add to the article. The information you posted is now on the talk page meaning that future editors of gang can see it and add it if they feel fit. If you have any reliably sourced (WP:RS) information (from independent sources) then please add it to the gang page. Your contributions will be appreciated. Steve as you requested a "higher" reviewer I'll see if I can find someone else to take a look at this. Thanks. PS can you please reply to comments on my talk page and not my userpage. Smartse (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We have stringent conflict-of-interest rules for a reason. You are persisting in adding links to a self-published book, containing your own original research. It should be noted that we do not consider self-published works as reliable sources, whether they are called "textbooks" by the author or not. These edits are not being rejected because of any ideological bias, but because they do not meet our firm requirements of verifiability, neutral point of view, and reliable sourcing. We also expect you to adhere to our purpose as an aggregator of solid secondary sources, not as a venue for original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Orangemike...I again request you compare my edit with Dr Stith's. We both cite our books. Please explain the difference. You have lost valuable information due to the selective and therefore mis-application of "rules". Stevonmfl (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your work is self-published; and inserted into this article by you. Prothrow-Stith's work was published by HarperCollins, and there is not a scintilla of evidence that she has ever come anywhere near this article. Apples to fewmets. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Steve, get something straight. There is no evidence that Stith came here and posted citations from her own book. Unless you have evidence that says she does, please stop making the claim. If another editor cites her, that's how things work. Nobody here has said your research was wrong. The issue is your conflict of interest.

Now, about your last message to me. I'll skip responding to your personal attacks (again). I have responded to you in the manner in which you addressed me. Considering that your first post to me told me that I had no idea what I was talking about (wrong) and that I needed to move out of the way because you are an "expert", it shouldn't really surprise you that much. You talk to me about my "bad cop attitude", but I'll skip further observations about your attitude. Maybe you're just not used to people who aren't bowled over by your "expertise", but I'm not some grad student or TA who is required to scrape and bow to you.

The Thomas link doesn't work. I have clicked on it on 2 different computers, as well as cut and pasted the link and tried paring it down. I'd like to hear from anyone that it is working for....besides you. The "many more" works you cited? Where are they? The only link I've seen from you, besides the Thomas one and the link to buy your book, was to a letter YOU wrote to a newspaper. Citing yourself isn't what we considered reliable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Niteshift36. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on User talk:Orangemike: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:Orangemike. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: comments about personal attacks

Hello. As an administrator here on Wikipedia who is not involved in the issues you've recently been having, I'd like to try to explain what's "really" going on here.

Wikipedia is not the place to discuss or debate. Our mission is to be an online encyclopedia: a tertiary source. As such, we need reliable and verifiable primary and secondary sources to document subjects. Especially in intricate and/ or complex abstract issues such as the one on which you seem to be focused, we especially need highly regarded sources; publications from academics or other sources known for their accuracy. And even at this stage, we are not republishing or advocating any viewpoints.

We simply, and as accurately as we can, document the most widely accepted viewpoints (technical, scientific, social, etc.), giving appropriate weight to each in trying to reflect how they exist in the real world. Aside from the conflict of interest that exists in promulgating your own viewpoint(s), no matter how academically sound it/ they might be, we must corroborate the acceptance of these in the related real-world spheres of influence. Wikipedia does not push, or detract from, any view that does not exist that way in the real world.

Regarding these messages that are asking you to stop attacking editors personally: using phrases like 'you people,' or 'you as a group of editors' targets the users, not the content. We have rules and conventions regarding user conduct, so if you feel that anyone has violated these protocols, there are venues within this community to undertake such complaints.

If you feel that the academic intergrity of this project is not being handled properly, please take the time to understand applicable policies and guidelines, such as Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research. I can fully understand that you may feel frustrated by what appears to be counteractions to your good faith efforts, especially with such a serious and complex topic, so understanding the foundation of our project and the community expectations will help you to better contribute to it and educate others as well. Just remember our requirements, and you should do very well here. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you've stumbled quite conveniently on a core issue: that of your expertise. This is something that would have to be verified by sources independent of you. (See Wikipedia:SECONDARY#Citing_oneself.) We discuss information, really; not ideas. You are definitely correct in estimating the lack of 'meaningful discussion on serious issues.' That sort of 'education' can be augmented with the balanced recording of facts on this site, but the source of those facts are the true players in those actual issues.

I urge you again to carefully examine our limited goal, and restrict your observations to the factual value of our content and its presentation thereof. You are certainly welcome to address breaches of our protocol and conventions on the talk pages of said articles, but in the end community consensus is the deciding factor, sa is the case with any wiki. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide me with diffs of the offenses, I'll investigate it myself. Otherwise, the AN/I process would be best suited for this sort of inquiry. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Block warning

Hello Stevonmfl. You appear to be well-intentioned, but you're now on a downward spiral here on Wikipedia. Please ask *any* experienced editor for assistance. You can even ask for advice at WP:Editor assistance/Requests if you wish. It is very likely that, if you continue as you are, you will wind up getting blocked for personal attacks or disruptive editing. If you would show just a tiny bit more patience, that can be avoided. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Pursue what you like

Wow, how many users can you try to complain to me about? You may not know it, but profanity, especially when it is not directed at someone else (just like mine was directed at myself) is not prohibited on Wikipedia. Sarcasm isn't banned either. It may not be the preferred choice, but it's not prohibited on its face. Why do you find it odd that someone you've told was ignorant and called a racist responds to you in the same manner you've been addressing them? This entire unpleasant episode could have been avoided if you'd just tried to comply with the rules and worked within them, rather than start an edit war. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• My response above to you was not sarcastic, profane or disrespectful. It left open putting an end to this unpleasantness. And then you come to my talk page and post nothing but an insult? How ironic to hear an academic talk about those who do. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sure you did complain about people to get them removed, based on your attempts here. Serving on a task force isn't "doing" to me Steve. It is advising, maybe observing. But "doing".....well, not so much. You can assess all you want, and it is your right to have an opinion, wrong as it may be. I treat people with the respect they deserve. Perhaps if you showed me some respect, you'd see it returned. I actually defended your material and spoke against blocking you. But you never noticed that. And if you think you'd resassign me, based on your unqualified and incorrect assessment, then I am glad I never had to work under someone like you. I've never liked working for emotional people. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Actually Steve, I have nothing left to say to you. Please do not post on my talk page again. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• For the second time, do not post on my talk page again. Your comments are not welcome. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NW557Bot (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you continue with the personal affronts, you will eventually lose your right to edit here permanently. Do not return uncivil comments if and when you feel you're being unfairly treated for any reason. I will look into the "other" side of this, and if blocks/ warnings are in order, they will be issued. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for your block

Here are two of the escalations which were a red flag towards an edit war and personal attacks:

• Your type is a dime a dozen. ... Your kind is what we call a ---- -------. ... Specifically, the veiled threat in the form of, "The day will not come where I back off or cow-tow to the likes of you." This is a group encyclopedia project, not some BBS or other messge board wherein one might spend all day flaming others and tossing around accusations without merit. Personally directed derogatory comments are not acceptable, especially in the form of veiled threats.

• You have little to no respect for some people and it shows. I therefore have made the assessment that you are a bully and have a bad-cop attitide. This kind of personal assessment of an individual editor detracts from the Wikipedia's community mission.

Please limit yourself to addressing the value of the contributions, and not the contributors. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Offer of assistance in future edits

You will have seen my contributions to the COI discussion - while I have not particular interest in the article where the issue arose, I do have an interest in the way Wikipedia collectively applies WP:COI, as it can if not applied correctly lead to a diminution in the encyclopaedic coverage. In the case of this article, clearly, there are a number of aspects that need to be covered for encyclopaedic coverage, including the areas you wished to introduce. If you wish to try again to introduce the information that you have, remember that you can develop content on your user page before you post it to the main article. This gives you the opportunity to have others look at it and comment on its suitability beforehand. You can also post suggested additions into the talk page of the article - which is specifically for discussion of how the article should be developed - again in order to garner community input prior to editing the article. If you would like someone to discuss any development work, purely in order to assist with meeting Wikipedia guidelines, I would be happy to help. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

From smartse

Please see my reply on my talk page. Smartse (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "Look, save your blocks and your one-sided viewpoints and punishments" I'm not an admin and therefore can't block you! Also I was trying to defend you but anyway.... You can't remove traces of yourself from wikipedia I'm afraid. Sorry. Smartse (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually found this if you're interested: [2] Smartse (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Steve, it was CobaltBlueTony™ _{talk who blocked you. Also, posting the same message on multiple userpages is considered spamming, which is not considered good form.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)}

Also (not sure you've realised this) Nightshift automatically deletes all comments on his talk page. You need to go into the history to see that comments/warnings have been addressed to him also.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

from cobaltbluetony (talk · contribs)

Comments such as those found here are patently offensive. Let's clear the air:

• I have not questioned your expertise; it simply should (and must) be independently corroborated. Other Wikipedians can see to that and explain how that's done.
• You have a blatant conflict of interest, in that you stand to benefit by fame and/or financial gain by using the Gang article to push your views, using your own book as the "reputable" source of those views. This isn't saying that your views aren't academically sound, nor that they shouldn't be presented in this article. What this is saying as that you shouldn't be the one to do so. Perhaps your issues with how you feel other perceive you feeds your desire to shout louder, but it is considered unethical for anyone wishing to be seen as an academic to behave in this manner. Wikipedia relies on widely established (not necessarily "accepted") academia. For your views to be perceived as academically sound and/ or have the resonance required to be otherwise notable enough, independent sources should corroborate this.
• It's a very tricky road to engage others with the dispassionate and impersonal tone required to edit fairly here; especially when you are so passionate about your viewpoint. This isn't to say you shouldn't do so; instead we need people who are passionate to contribute effectively here. But you have to accept the rules and principles by which all Wikipedians agree to when they start here. Since we feel very strongly about independent and unbiased corroboration of the notability of a viewpoint (not the content of such), it is strongly advised that you do not push your own into articles here.

On a personal note, since you do not know me, I'll assume that your statement about me having a "white day" was made out of simple anger, and that you do not presume to know me, my experiences, my views on race, where I live, or who my friends are. That would be prejudiced. I am interested in your views and their viability here, but it is a hard sell when you come in "here," guns blazing, and making assumptions about who the real human beings are behind these words on a screen. It detracts from your true message, and the Wikipedia community's interest in what you have to say. Cheers. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You wrote:

"This is a standard method of operating (whether blatand [sic] or subtle) that white people use to maintain a level of superiority..."

Seriously? You're going with that?

Here's the bottom line: your book needs to be peer-reviewed, or reviewed by more than one notable source. It's been left in as a "further reading" item, but some here might even object to that. I'd prefer that you name some notable experts whose opinions you respect, or find a review of your book by an established source. There's no reason for you to abandon Wikipedia unless you're going to continue with the racist assumptions about other editors. Just because you've encountered setbacks doesn't mean you're not an equal voice. Crying foul so prematurely violates one of our most sacred tenets here, that of the assumption of good faith on the part of other editors. I doubt you have nothing of value to contribute, so let's put this nonsense behind us and do something useful, shall we? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I found your comments more incendiary and disruptive. I made comments to Niteshift36 (talk · contribs) to express my opinion of his actions, as did others, and he "came clean" on my own talk page, citing where he felt he erred. You're welcome to call my actions into question and have other random admins review my choice. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You are corrct. I should have explained further. Examples of bias are plentiful and well documented. Evidence can be seen in uneven grading, vehicle stops, arrests and sentencing patterns; uneven employment, lending, housing and health care and etc. etc. etc... The bias process is difficult to identify as it occurs but shows itself over time (patterns). I do not intend to insult, only to point out how the dual treatment is received and perceived...and I am far from alone. I would be surprised if I were not correct in my assumption of the make-up of the "editors". The treatment follows a very old pattern and is obvious to those who are aware of it and can spot it. In the case of how you dealt with nightshift36 and myself: he was given a warning and then a suspended sentence and I was thrown in jail and then was (am) about to be fired...all for the same infraction. I assume that after repeatedly experiencing and putting up with this sort of thing you might react similarly. Alas...we will never know. Stevonmfl (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You are still not understanding, and your continued accusations of racism are likely to get you another block if they spread outside the talk pages of the people who still have some patience with you. In cyberspace (in case you hadn't noticed) no-one can see what colour you are. They might find out after a while,especially if you give out the kind of information that makes it likely, but when a new user breezes into town, they come in whatever colour your browser uses to denote an unclicked link. Not only did I not know you were black until you made a point of it yesterday, I still don't know whether you are actually black. You could just be pretending - that's the joy and the peril of cyberspace all at once.

However, because you *were* new, because no-one knew you, you were treated with suspicion. A newcomer can be a valuable editor...or a troll, vandal, sock or other kind of disruptive element. No one knows, and a lot of editors do, rightly or wrongly, treat newbies with a great deal of suspicion. Individuals who have a heightened sense of injustice (or a chip on their shoulder) tend to do very badly at this point, because they feel it is directed personally at them. Instead, if anything, the opposite is true - the 'old lags' tend to treat newbies like this because they do not yet have an identity or personality, and they are viewed as blundering nuisances because they don't know the rules.

So get down off your high horse and stop accusing everyone of racism on no real grounds whatsoever.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See, I would have guessed that he was Hispanic / Latino. Could be both; who cares?

Steve, while Niteshift36 was not officially blocked, his past record goes with him -- even if he deletes every comment we make to him, the history stays there. I sincerely felt that your use of the race card was more incendiary: it had nothing to do with the color I might have presumed you were. Needless to say, the book still remains in the "further reading" section of the article, which is quite an accomplishment this far into the process. In fact, I was considering writing to your co-author to see if he could elicit some official reviews from his peers to help out with the importance of the book so that it could be cited much less of an aura of a conflict of interest. No one here has done anything based on their perception of your race, nor would it be appropriate to infer it, no matter how many times you see it. I hops I am demonstrating the good will of the Wikipedia community in continuing to engage you in dialog, instead of writing you off completely, as one might expect an individual with an overt, covert, or even subconscious aversion to your point of view. I hope that you can tell by my tone that I intend to refute your prejudices about me by my actions. While I may not know about what it's like to be an ethnic minority (even though I often face religious discrimination, from the age of 4 on), it's possible for someone like me to genuinely care about your views. I know what bias against others looks like too, and I have called others on it. I also know that too much of it tends to skew one's perception of well-meaning individuals who happen not to share one's heritage. I ask you to consider carefully our requirements without notions of any subversive built-in systems meant to exclude. I'm going offline until tomorrow, but I hope to continue our conversation. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

== and they need more than that ==...

Look...this is the real world...and the real world has consequences. I am working with people who want to make real changes in the real world and not play with it as a new toy (wikipedia). I honestly viewed this venue as a tool to educate and not one to control and manipulate. Whether I am black or Hispanic means nothing to me and it shouldn't to you. The idea of attempting to use the Internet as a mechanism for positive change in people's lives is the objective that I entered into this exchange with and I was stopped in my tracks in the same old ways. We are working on ways to use the Internet to stop real time violence in Darfur, Iraq, Chicago and Compton. This is putting the Internet to its best use...to help humanity. Your group wants to do something else which, in MY opinion, is not putting the best of the Internet to its best use. You and the other wiki editors can read about it in about two to three years in someone's "book".Stevonmfl (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Stevonmfl (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

...and before you explain that I am in the wrong venue, ask yourselves if this is the right venue for what you are doing. It seems to me you are not much more than a library of miscellaneous facts. A better application of real-time Internet usage might be at least to add a category of "experimental and revolutionary news" or something that connects real world changes and dynamics with wiki. Otherwise, you are not of real usefulness as the world is moving faster than you are able to keep up. And the Internet was made for such changes.Stevonmfl (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cobaltbluetony"ViewsUser page Discussion Edit this page New section History Move Watch Personal toolsStevonmfl My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out Navigation

OK, since it would seem that you are totally resistant to anyone attempting to assist you...I quit. Do what you please, and blame it on whatever you please, as you are obviously going to do so anyway. Do not post blocks of spam on my talk page again, and desist from personal insults on my talk page. In fact, just don't go near my talk page again unless it is with an apology.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee Elen of the roads...I was gonna say the same thing to you...Stevonmfl (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking seriously of joining the following group and using this episode as a classic lesson in bias and piling on: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias Stevonmfl (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with joining that group, they do good work; but they are no more tolerant of conflict of interest and no original research violations than the rest of us. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That point is long gone. I will not be posting anything on these pages as I have indicated. You can read about it in your old age. I have seen many places where the COI is ignored. It all depends on the editing and editor's personal view. The point now is the ganging up on people wishing to assist non-whites in their understanding of damaging influences in an obviously white controlled environment. And how bias is used as a group weapon. Even the meaning of your comment is aimed to do nothing less. Meanwhile, nightshift36 goes on to his next battle knowing he is protected even though it is clear that the use of editing and blocking was unjustifiable and misapplied. I will participate to bring to light when and how this is done for the benefit of younger persons not yet blind to their own biases.Stevonmfl (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you consider impartial application of clearly stated rules "childish". Your petulant refusal to accept that you are bound by the same ethical standards as the rest of us does not leave anybody here impressed with your scholarly rigor; but may shed some light on your inability to find a legitimate venue for the publication of your "textbook." --Orange Mike | Talk 13:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Read what you wrote dingbutt. It is the manner you people (as a group) use to address and deal with those you consider less than you...and, your dual application of "rules". Your latest attempt to make me feel small is another indication of your use of sarcasm and insult to make a case. Your just gonna have to keep trying...sorry. I am absolutely convinced the reason I am being put through all of this nonsense is because you (as a grouP) do not give a damn about this life and death issue as it (seemingly) does not affect you or yur people. If this related to say a Columbine piece, you would be all over each other but to get it in...sideways if necessary. I have been hit with everything your people have...which frankly ain't much. And my book is doing quite well and young people say things like, "its about time". Hey...you guys lost the damned election...get over it and move out of the way.Stevonmfl (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? The Bushies lost the election; we won, not them. I live in the inner city my child goes to a city school with a black majority (and has all her life); I work in social services; and I follow the rules of whatever organization I am involved in. Don't presume that anybody who expects you to play by the rules is some kind of cracker. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I feel compelled to see if you can understand why your information was removed from Gang. The first I heard about this was on the WP:COIN. I value the impartiality of wikipedia above everything else and I check pages to ensure that editors do not have a COI with the articles they are editing. It does not make any difference whether the article is about Feature models, Rival Brand, Virginia Railway Express or Gang. I still think that you could add some information to gang but you must make sure that it is cited from an independent reliable source. Please message me if there are any edits you wish to make to Gang that you would like me to check over. Peace...Smartse (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To Orangemike. I was offered a deal from a publishing house that you would accept as a legitimate venue (I was not looking for one...they came to me). As I suspected, the book would have cost triple what I was able to do with lulu. My intent is not to make money on this subject as so many others do, especially as careers (I am gainfully retired and frankly do not need the money). Many people retire and try and forget what they spent a lifetime learning. I want to pass on what I have learned to the next generation(s) and they can "take it from there". I wish I had such info at the beginning of my career. The workforce around gang-active communities is astounding, as you are aware. My goal is to educate as to the underlying forces that birth such rage and that perpetuate it. I agree with President Obama as to finding what works and not funding maintenance of effort, which is what we do in spades. A systemic, structural change has to occur here as well as with banks and credit cards and automakers. Funds need to go to schools, parks, libraries and other family friendly infrastructure rather than cops, probation/parole dep'ts, prosecuters jails and prisons...even social services. Do you mind if I do that? Your wiki gang pages are full of criminal and enforcement related information (crapola) on "gangs". While over at the Columbine pages, info attempts to heal, to educate, learn, understand, correct, mitigate, forgive, offer resources but hardly anything on the gang aspect of the event, which it was. FYI, there is absolutely NO research being done on the provenance of violence as re: minority groups, except what we are putting forth. However, there is a tremendous amount of work ($$$$$$) investigating the criminal aspects of violence vis a vis ethnic minorities. And now NIMH is looking at genetic relationships.Stevonmfl (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Smartse I get it. I get it. I understand the COI, etc. I am not trying to force my will on anyone. I did not know the "rules" when I undid the removals. But I quickly saw how this place operates. There is no need to request your assistance.Stevonmfl (talk) 01:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

the book

Steve, the simplest way I can explain how your book can augment Wikipedia is this: get it some press coverage. I know you can do this, and I know you have the where-with-all to push forward. Progress is possible: recognition, equality, respect come to those who know how to obtain them. Gangs in the United States says that "by 1999, Hispanics accounted for 41% of all gang members, Blacks 38%, Whites 4%, and Asians 37%." That's staggering! The language that needs to be used to get people's attention needs to be their own. Most importantly, it needs to be highlighted that there is a far greater economic cost to simply policing the slums and suppressing the populace than if they educated the same group of people and made them middle-class consumers and taxpayers. Hit them in the wallet and make them see the true costs. This is how environmentally sound business practices are becoming clear to previously opposed groups: the real value of energy conservation and the near-term detriment that continued pollution, et. al. is causing were explained in economic terms that made sense to them.

I get the anger and frustration from your words, and while I cannot know what it is like to be non-white in America, I can reassure you that there are plenty of white people who do genuinely care. What you need to do is envision the future and begin speaking to others from within that world, much like Martin Luther King, Jr. did. He behaved as a man of peace, but he would not back down from elucidating the world as to the damage racism does to humanity as a whole. A wise man once wrote, "An answer, when mild, turns away rage, but a word causing pain makes anger to come up." Offer your dream, your hope to others, and explain how much better others' lives will be if they sympathize with your vision of peace and hope in deed, not just in word. Relive and recount the pain and anger with blame as your motive, and you'll lose allies.

So bottom line: get your book the attention it needs to start making the impact you desire, and we here can document this accordingly. Wikipedia cannot praise or tout it, but having it become notable enough for inclusion is the best use that Wikipedia can offer. I really do hope to hear from you soon! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you for noting the importance of this issue. However, Im not really interested in martyrdom and have buried too many children of color over my career. I like Pres. Obama's result orientation. That is how I made the changes that remain state of the art in dealing with gangs to date. Many either say to "wait" and "just be patient" and then ask, "why are your people so angry?". Now these people are being moved to the side of the road. One primary reason there have not been societal, structural changes over decades is due to those gatekeepers who say to "be patient" as we bury our children and family members. And law enforcement "experts" that society has placed to manage this social malady support a do-nothing approach. "Waiting for the world to change" ain't gonna cut it. Therefore, my persistence which perhaps is interpreted by some as antagonistic. I did not seek it but became a top national expert on community violence...and one of a very few looking beyond the obvious numbers you cite. I have been on TV from Nightline to Geraldo and in Newsweek, Time, People, the LA Times, NY Times, etc. etc. and actually left the work in 1993 (LA Times Metro 2/14/93). Over the past decade I have developed critical information that will shake the rafters (and the foundations of community violence). If you ever get around to reviewing the Columbine Massacre edits maybe you will observe the perenial double standard that is obvious to those of us who must constantly provide additional "proof" for validation of our expertise. I tried to do it here and have of course been put off. I have been successful if success is saving lives and changing systems. I have a few more breakthroughs to disclose and then the next generations will have a solution oriented foothold to continue those changes. And the folklore based "causes" and punitive "solutions" will go by the wayside. Nothing can stop that.

Speedy deletion nomination of Steven D. Valdivia

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

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Steven D. Valdivia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that 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 general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Steven D. Valdivia and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs) 04:59, February 25, 2010

I am trying to correct the info on my name. Thus changing from a code name to my formal name. what is the problem? I also included a ton of articles, periodicals, newspieces and references that keep dissapearing from your talk page. What am I doing wrong?Stevonmfl (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bio

The article on you is already deleted. What was in it didn't meet the criteria for notability. You had no sources at all, let alone reliable third party sources. And again, there is often a conflict of interest issue when you write your own bio. I left it alone for a long time since we had a conflict, so it wouldn't appear that I was targetting you. But when you redirected your talk page to your own bio, that just couldn't be ignored. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I just Googled my name "Steve(n) Valdivia gang" and three-plus authoritative pages came up! What needs to be done to get a listing on this site? I do honestly want to know as students are asking the same question. Stevonmfl (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• I googled your name. The first page was Linkedin pages (not a RS), links to your self-published book (we already covered that), myspace, facebook, reunion.com, hot-people.com, an Amazon link to your self-published book and whitepages.com. When I added gang......I got your self-published book and some mentions in other sites. Which links from reliable, 3rd party sources are you considering to be "significant coverage"? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Being rather selective I see....see the below link...it goes on for three pages and only five are of the book! http://www.google.com/search?q=stev+valdivia+gang&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=gS3&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&&sa=X&ei=FampTNGZBoK8lQfoq6CNDQ&ved=0CBYQBSgA&q=steve+valdivia+gang&spell=1&fp=84f34ab5383c7ee9 Stevonmfl (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please don't post the same stuff here and on my page. I will respond here. I wasn't being selective. That's the results I got when I added gang to your name. Again, most are links about your self-published book or mentions of your previous job. I'm failing to see the significant third party coverage that WP:BIO requires. If you have something specific you think meets that, what is it? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The following are only a few of the items. NY Times, Trainer for OJJDP of the Dept of Justice, LA Times, on and on that speaks to my expertise. Please explain how in this system do I appeal to a higher authority because you are clearly disregarding a ton of evidence that illustrates expertise. In my case you are placing an unreasonable degree of requirements that is not evident in other listings. I don't want my name...I want to provide needed information. www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=123674; www.nytimes.com/.../an-anti-gang-movie-opens-to-violence.html; www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974289,00.html; articles.latimes.com/1993-02-14/.../me-34_1_community-youth-gang;www.modelsforchange.net/publications/listing.html ; hewordlasc.weebly.com/gang-culture--malcolm-pruitt.html ;OJJDP to Sponsor National Youth Gang Symposium - U.S. Newswire ...; seasr.org/blog/author/kelly/ Stevonmfl (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC) One more thing: self publishing is catching on. In fact, it is replacing traditional publishing. My book is being used as text in two universities. How are you doing besides playing god? Stevonmfl (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Being mentioned in articles is not "significant" coverage. Nobody has, at this point, disputed your expertise. What has been in dispute all along is your notability. In light your abandoning civility and returning to your insulting bullshit, I will stop trying to assist you. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nightshift36

Let me be clear. You have not tried to assist once. You have bent over backwards to reject any and every move I have made to add valuable and updated information to a deadly activity among usually minority young people, thus allowing mis-truths and unfounded perceptions to guide those seeking answers to the gang issue. You have a God complex that has no place in such an open source environment.Stevonmfl (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What is and is not notable

The guidelines as to what is and is not acceptable as evidence of notability can seem downright arbitrary and even more than a little unfair. The guidelines for what qualifies as notability for people can be found here: Wikipedia:Notability_(people).

A good example of what Wikipedia's guidelines considers material supportive of notability ("secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject") would be the LA Times article of February 14, 1993 titled "Leaving His Turf" by Jesse Katz (http://articles.latimes.com/1993-02-14/local/me-34_1_community-youth-gang). This article meets the criteria for supporting evidence of notability because it is a secondary source from an independent, reliable source and your are the primary subject ("in depth coverage").

On the other hand, a good example of what Wikipedia's guidelines do not consider to be material supportive of notability is the article "From Killing Fields to Mean Streets" from the June 24, 2001 issue of Time magazine. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101911118-155910,00.html) Although Time magazine is a reliable, intellectually independent, secondary source, you are not the subject of the article, and are only quoted briefly.

Another example of material that is not supportive of notability would be an audiovisual recording of you participating in a panel discussion, such as the NCJRS video "Crime File: Drugs, Youth Gangs" (http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=123674). While this may seem odd, since it is your expertise that is the reason you are participating, this is primary source material, and although primary sources are excellent sources for direct quotes from subjects, Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes Wikipedia:QUOTEFARM#Overusing_quotations. So to include material from this recording in Wikipedia would require thoughtful analysis and synthesis on the part of the writer but Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research (taking primary source materials, analyzing them and creating a secondary source synthesis, see Wikipedia:OR)

Further, social networking sites, such as MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc, are not evidence of notability. Popularity perhaps, but not notability.

Also, Wikipedia has a behavioral guideline Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest which asks editors to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest. In short, do not use Wikipedia "to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits are in the best interest of Wikipedia." While it is technically possible to write your own biography on Wikipedia if you maintain a neutral, third person POV, the fact that a person wrote their own biographical article gives the appearance of impropriety even if no impropriety actually occurred, and that is by consensus judgment deemed to be "not in the best interests of Wikipedia."

Finally, if you wish to have a biographical article included in Wikipedia, given what I have seen I am of the opinion that you would need more than just the one high-quality source you have from the LA Times article to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. And someone other than yourself -- a neutral third party -- should write it.

If you have any questions or would like a more in depth explanation for my line of reasoning, please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page, I'd be happy to discuss with you any concerns you might have. (I do keep odd hours though, so if I don't respond immediately, please don't think I'm blowing you off.)

Mtiffany71 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help out

Thanks for leaving me a message. It's nice to know I could help you out. But rather than relying on me or someone else to tell you what is and is not notable, I'd like to provide you with some links to policies and guidelines here at Wikipedia regarding notability that you can read for yourself: the difference being the parable of giving someone a fish and teaching them how to fish.

• Wikipedia:Notability General guidelines on notability. Good to use a 'rule of thumb,' as it is the basic 'common sense' template used to derive notability guidelines for more specific topics, like: people, events, movies, periodicals, etc, where a "one-size fits all" approach to notability provided by the general guideline doesn't work well and more specific guidance is needed.
• Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Notability guidelines for persons.
• Wikipedia:BLP Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living persons.
• Wikipedia:Verifiability This policy boils down to: "We wish we could, but we can't take your word for it." Anyone adding material to wikipedia has to provide a source for that material, and that source can't be themselves, as that would be primary source, and wikipedia only accepts secondary sources.
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Okay, you've provided a secondary source for your material, but are they reliable? News articles appearing in a paper of record: LA Times, Washington Post, NY Times, are examples generally accepted as reliable sources. Posts in blogs or in message boards are generally not accepted as reliable sources, although there are exceptions, they must be thoroughly vetted and justified.

This only looks like a lot of reading. It really isn't. The guidelines are generally clear if you read through them a couple of times. The first time I read through them I went "Huh? But that makes no sense!" Trust me, these guidelines do make sense, and start making sense and make editing Wikipedia a lot easier to edit once you become familiar with them. If there's anything in these guidelines you're not clear on, you can always ask me on my talk page, just tell me what guideline or policy page (These special pages start with "Wikipedia:" and then the page name) you have a question about, and the specific point that's giving you a headache (they all do when at the beginning -- but it is worth it). And you don't have to take my word on anything. The Village Pump is a great place to look up policies and ask for help. There are lots of people on Wikipedia who want to help and would be happy to answer your questions, and give you their opinions and feedback.

Mtiffany71 (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Your addition to Darren White (politician) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok I am learning. Understood. Stevonmfl (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)