User talk:Youngnoah

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Vivint". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 23:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vivint Gives Back

The article Vivint Gives Back has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable, appears to be primarily an advertisement for the charitable arm of a larger company which already has an article

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GentlemanGhost (converse) 22:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of BioHub

The article BioHub has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not seem totally notable. It was written more of an ad toa attract attention

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pyrusca (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BioHub, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Priscilla Chan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Your contributed article, UC Botanical Garden at Berkeley

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, UC Botanical Garden at Berkeley. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – University of California Botanical Garden. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at University of California Botanical Garden – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The article already exists, but all the botanical photos at commons need to be in this category. you wanna contribute, create a new category there with this precise name Category:University of California Botanical Garden, and add it to all the photos taken there. that would be a mitzvah.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of NUVI

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on NUVI requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://utahpulse.com/index.php/features/technology/3765-social-media-giant-nuvi-doubles-in-size-moves-to-new-headquarters-in-lehi-utah. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Keith Nellesen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mapleton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Keith Nellesen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Keith Nellesen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Nellesen 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Nightfury 09:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Youngnoah. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Radio-daughter

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Radio-daughter. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Decay product. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Decay product. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 21:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Gunnar Thompson

Sorry, but the website fails WP:RS as does Thompson. The website hosts all sorts of debunked nonsense, and you may have missed the fact that Thompson's book is selfpublished by Lulu.com Doug Weller talk 20:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

(+1) to what he said.Also, read WP:RSSELF.Winged Blades^Godric 14:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Self published sources are not generally RS unless they are by renowned experts in the subject, Gunnar Thompson is not one.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It appears that Thompson meets the exception. He does not have only one book that is self-published as you claim ("Thompson's book is selfpublished"), but rather he is extensively published by various outlets. See Amazon for a list of 7 of his published books in the field of pre-columbian maps/contacts with the Americas: https://www.amazon.com/Gunnar-Thompson/e/B001JS445E While I do not necessarily agree with any/all of his conclusions, his pre-columbian maps of 'Fishland' in the cited article (which is likely an excerpt from one of his books) is quite compelling, and used on that strength alone. It contains six points showing the likelihood that 'Fishland' is actually Newfoundland, though misplaced longitudinally. It is approximately correct in latitude. As you know, in those days, longitude was not possible to do accurately until the later invention of the sea-going chronometer (clock). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison

That is, the Six Points are: Point 1, latitude is close to correct. Point 2 is the name, Fishland, which describes the nature of the surroundings, i.e. a good fishery Points 3, 4, 5, 6 are detailed in the article (his points 1, 2, 3, 4). Namely; Point 3, St. John island and its dozen or so surrounding islands (see here: https://www.google.com/maps/@50.8677536,-57.090794,51476m/data=!3m1!1e3); Point 4, long promontory peninsula, (see here: https://www.google.com/maps/@50.3768145,-56.2814491,411645m/data=!3m1!1e3); Point 5, extensive shoal islands in appropriate location (see here; https://www.google.com/maps/@49.3240654,-53.7033257,103015m/data=!3m1!1e3); and Point 6, additional promontory in appropriate location, as here: https://www.google.com/maps/@48.3550611,-53.4743089,411664m/data=!3m1!1e3

Moreover, it is roughly rectangular, as are the three 'Fishland' maps copied in his article.

In other words, Thompson presents a compelling case, with which I happen to agree. While it is not 'proof', it does counter the (some say silly) argument that the map is entirely fictional.

Since the 'points' of Doug Weller and Slater Steven are refuted, I am reverting their reverts.

Wikipedia doesn't care about our opinions or analyses. We only care about what reliably published sources say about a subject, and Thompson is not one. You are violating basic polies at WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Well I checked Amazon, and then did a search to find information about these publishers. Not one came up as a hit. At least some read like vanity presses. But without being able to see it is hard to tell.Slatersteven (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

His books seem to be self-published. Nu Sun: Asian-American Voyages, 500 B.C. something called Pioneer Publishing in Fresno CA which is where Thompson worked and doesn't seem to have published anything else. Certainly not what we call reliably published and got a terrible review in an academic journal.[1]

Secret Voyages published by his "New World Discovery Institute".[2]

American Discovery, what's "Seattle: "Argonauts O.T.M" - again, Seattle where he worked.

Friar's Map L Lee productins - can't find this, not reliably published. It claims "Guernsey Museum Monograph, Multicultural Heritage Series No. 3" but here's their list of publications.[3]

Lions in the New World only lists a distributor. That

American Discovery is listed twice, there seems to be a 2nd edition, again it's the mysterious OTM in Seattle, not reliably published. In fact these all look self-published. 21:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

I did a quick search on 'Pioneer Publishing Co. Fresno CA', and unlike you, came up with numerous cites, including: Heartsounds Robucck, Marie ISBN 10: 0914330969 / ISBN 13: 9780914330967 Published by Pioneer Publishing Co., Fresno, CA, 1986

There were others, as well. I note that all of his publications have ISBN numbers. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number While it may be that some of his publications are 'self-published', not all of them are.

Having a difference of opinion on how to make the article better is not 'vandalism' as suggested by you and cohorts. You should actually read what vandalism is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism; as well as wikipedia vandalism at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

You should read this again (and again, and again, etc.) until it sinks in that what you are engaged in is actually vandalism: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge."

Falsely claiming the author is solely self published, when he apparently is not, as a pretext for removing valuable information about an article, is a form of vandalism on your part. I have above used various links to Google Earth to likewise verify the claims that Thompson makes. That is not 'original research' on my part. Get a grip. That is providing a resource so that anyone can verify the information that Thompson collated from various other authors regarding Fishland and the three maps he brought in from other sources to show their similarity to Newfoundland.

He has presented the knowledge of the existence of 3 separate maps, all of which detail 'Fishland', wherein he points out their similarity to themselves, and then to Newfoundland. You are deliberately attempting to keep that knowledge away from the readers of Wikipedia, which defeats the purpose of presenting that knowledge of their similarities. I leave it for the reader to determine whether that means Fishland is definitely the same as Newfoundland. You wish to keep that knowledge away from the reader so they cannot decide for themselves. Youngnoah (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Youngnoah

I just learned in my readings about Thompson that he passed away earlier this year. I feel it appropriate to cite his obituary: http://marcopoloinseattle.com/wp/obituary/ Youngnoah (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Youngnoah

The things you have stated here precisely fits WP:OR. Pioneer, Fresna seems to have published 3/4 books and is very likely to be a back-yard publishing house at best.Same about RBP.Doubtful about AMIP.Also, having an ISBN number proves nothing! If you have got reliable journals covering T's work extensively or validating him as a field-expert or positively reviewing his works, bring them to the table.Otherwise, feel free to launch your own wiki and promote this stuff coupled with his obituary.Winged Blades^Godric 06:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

If you have found a successful search for Pioneer can you post the link where? And no I did not say he was solely self published, I also said many of these look like Vanity publishers.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can buy an ISBN number, that proves nothing. It is very clear that at least some of his books are self-published and none meet our qualifications for being reliably published at WP:RS. Your use of Google Earth is original research by our definition. If you think it isn't ask at WP:NORN. I know Thompson died this year. Not sure why you mention the obituary on his website unless it's to show that he's dead. Don't you think it's a bit odd that the only mentionn of Heartsounds Marie Robucck is on that one Abe Books site? Ditto the name Marie Robucck, that's the only place I can find it. But I agree that they've published other books, but there's no evidence that they meet our criteria and that's what you need and is one reason for removing it. The book he wrote on the issue in question is definitely self-published and can't be used. You are also failing to accept that the editors who disagree with you are acting in good faith, see WP:AGF. I misclicked on the software and gave you the wrong warning. I've changed that. But note that persistently ignoring our guidelines and policies is usually treated as vandalism. You might also consider that with 177760 edits since: 2006-04-23 I might know something about it, especially as I must have blocked over a thousand vandals in my time and am an elected member of the Arbitration Committee. Anyway, feel free to ask at WP:RSN or WP:NORN about this but you already have comments by several editors. Just don't keep reinserting it. Doug Weller talk 10:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Try this link for other Pioneer Publishing book referenced: https://www.abebooks.com/Heartsounds-Robucck-Marie-Pioneer-Publishing-Fresno/136 34400867/bd

I have a link to a peer-reviewed article in a recognized journal (Portolan Journal) that I will use to edit the article. Youngnoah (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Youngnoah

Amazing. He got them to refer to him as "DR. GUNNAR THOMPSON is Chief Archaeologist at the New World Discovery Institute in Seattle." Of course he was. He could give himself any title he wanted as it was his "institute".[4] He wasn't an archaeologist of course. So where can we find discussion of his paper? I see a pre-publication copy on his website.[5] Ah, found his cv in an obit.[6] "He graduated from the University of Illinois with a degree in anthropology while doing research at Cahokia Indian Mounds in southern Illinois. He received a grant from the University of Wisconsin where he earned a doctorate in Rehabilitation Therapy. During his career, Gunnar taught at the State University of Whitewater in Wisconsin, Duke University, California State University at Fresno, and the University of Hawaii. He also did rehabilitation therapy work for Harborview Hospital in Seattle and for Jefferson County in Port Townsend." You don't find details of his professional career on hiw website. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

So what's your PhD in? Sounds like he has (had) a diversity of interests. Did you read his pre-publication copy you cited? 58 references, peer reviewed. Definitely not self-published. I'm waiting confirmation it was published. Glad to see you know how to find such things when they are casually mentioned. He again gives even more detail showing how the name changed from Fixland (Fishland) to Frisland, while the detail of the island improved over time, etc.; and linking all of that to Newfoundland quite nicely. Youngnoah (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Youngnoah

Do you understand what Self Published means? But to be fair it was at least published in a society journal, the only question is now is it RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

And we know about the book by another author on Abe, that gives us no information about the nature of the publisher. The fact that their "one other notable book" can only be found on a second hand book site speaks volumes as to the sort of books they publish.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I notice on your user page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slatersteven) that you have noted a British newspaper considers your opinions of note (The Daily Mail consider his opinions worthy of note [2]. citing: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4280502/Anonymous-Wikipedia-activists-promote-warped-agenda.html The article then details abuses by some wikipedia editors of their authority. That is an unusual claim to fame, that a noted newspaper asserts that you abuse your authority.

I have confirmed that the article was indeed published in the Portolan Journal (http://www.washmapsociety.org/TPJ2.htm) by speaking with its editor, who confirmed the article met the Journal's requirements for publication, and was indeed published. Since it is a private society, access to the published article is by subscription, which I have not paid. It was confirmed to me that the actual peer-reviewed published article (Issue 97, Portolan Journal, Winter 2016) is the same as the one posted on the internet by Thompson a few months prior to his death. Thompson, Gunnar (2016). Newfoundland’s “Circle Island Group”: gateway to legendary fortunes in early North Atlantic commerce and the Northwest Passage. The Portolan 97(winter): 41-58. ill. 58 endnotes. (found in Spring, 2017 list of articles: http://www.washmapsociety.org/000/0/9/8/22890/userfiles/file/RECENT%20PUBLICATIONS_10%20yr%20summary%20collation_Kovarsky%20(004).pdf Youngnoah (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Youngnoah

LOL, it was not abuse it was a community choice.

As to the Portolan, as Doug has pointed out to me, this is not a peer reviewed journal as far as he can tell, it is just a journal (of a society). Can you provide evidence it has a peer review process and does not just publish without peer review?Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

With reference to this comment: "LOL, it was not abuse it was a community choice.", it wouild appear that if one gets a group of abusers together to form a community, that is what the author was complaining about.

With reference to the Portolan, the guidelines for submission for possible publication (i.e. not guaranteed publication) are found on this page: http://www.washmapsociety.org/Submitting-Articles.htm YOu will note they have hundreds of publications spanning several decades. As with any publication (scientific or otherwise), the editors do not vouch for the validity of each point of an article; rather that the article meets their particular peer-review process). Youngnoah (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Youngnoah

I see nothing in this about peer review, or indeed any criteria for quality or academic excellence. In fact it is entierly about style, not substance.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe that most journals will publish their format requirements, but not detail their peer-review process. One can assess their process somewhat by examining their extensive list of publications. I suspect it's along the lines that if it looks reasonable to the editors or the editors' associates, and it is well-referenced, and it meets the format requirements, then it should be published. I believe most journals' peer-review is along those lines. I have read instances of some science journals publishing 'baloney' when they did not follow such a process. Youngnoah (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Youngnoah

[[7]], [[8]], this is what makes them RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not peer reviewed and doesn't claim to be. Peer reviewed journals make it clear that they are peer reviewed. Of course some journals that claim to be peer reviewed aren't telling the truth about themselves, but this journal doesn't make such claims.[9] It does say that it is "It is the only journal of its kind published in the Americas focusing on the history of cartography, map collecting, and cartography. The contents of The Portolan are not just articles about local events in Washington. While there are announcements of coming meetings, the contents comprise a rich mix of cartographic interest".

Zechariah Sitchin's books have hundreds of excellent reference but are pure rubbish. I imagine his book about ancient Egyptian maize has lots of references also. Or the one that tells all about the voyages to America by King Solomon, Hatshepsut, Marco Polo, Zheng He, Xu Fu, Vespucci, and Martin Behaim. Or the one that writes about colonies established by King Arthur, Leif Ericsson, Henry Sinclair, and Prince Madoc. Doug Weller talk 19:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe Thompson falls in the same category of Sitchin. From the article about Sitchin: "Similar to earlier authors such as Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken, Sitchin advocated hypotheses in which extraterrestrial events supposedly played a significant role in ancient human history." As to his other books, I have not read them. However, it is now well documented that circa 1000 AD, norwegians colonized newfoundland. It is not hard to imagine that they had ongoing commerce during their period of having major settlements on Greenland (which are also well documented). Indeed, that is part of Thompson's thesis, that they charted that island, and it was known to some European cartographers prior to Columbus' day. See, for example, this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_colonization_of_North_America which also suggests, as does Thompson, that North America was used as a lumber source for the Norwegian commerce. "While voyages, for example to collect timber, are likely to have occurred for some time, there is no evidence of any lasting Norse settlements on mainland North America.[3]" This, of course, disagrees with this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Anse_aux_Meadows "L'Anse aux Meadows ... is the only certain site of a Norse or Viking settlement in North America." But apparently you believe that others before Columbus could not have visited North America or established settlements there. You are, of course, entitled to your mistaken beliefs. Youngnoah (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Youngnoah

Yet only appears on maps something like 100 years after columbases voyage.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

And saying that Vinland is not Frisland is not saying that Vinland is a myth.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Figure 5 (from: http://marcopoloinseattle.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Portolan-Article-Newfoundland-Nov-2016-1.pdf) shows the Catalan map of circa 1480 AD. It shows Fishland island as having the same geographic markers as Newfoundland island. The St. John Island group (not to be confused with the town of St. John's on the opposite side of the island) is a small circle of islands just off the coast of Newfoundland island. It shows on both the 1480 map, and our modern map. This is a very distinctive characteristic. Likewise, other geographical markers show on both the 1480 map and our modern map; namely point 8 (bay), point 6 (peninsula), point 5 island (actually, now known to be a paene insula, or almost island), point 4 peninsula, point 3 shoal islands, point 2 peninsula. The Zeno map of the St. John islands is almost exactly the same as the modern map, and is likewise shown as a navigational hazard (menace), which it certainly was if one was not careful. Youngnoah (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Youngnoah

Well I think this needs to be discussed seperatly, as out article seems to not be aware of this map.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

10:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

This should be discussed at Talk:Frisland, where there are now sources. And Youngnoah, we do need to use sources that meet WP:RS. I realise that you share a number of fringe beliefs with Thompson (ie all those people visiting America), but that's not a reason not to follow our policy and guidelines. Please note that the settlement on Newfoundland was probably an outpost, perhaps for boat repair.[10] Doug Weller talk 19:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I will start a discussion at Talk:Frisland later this weekend (New Year's Eve weekend, ya know). Just FYI, I'm not a 'new' editor at Wikipedia - just not quite as many edits as you (good job, by the way!). I started editing about a decade ago, as per my alternative account referenced by my current user account. This is not a field I've done much editing in (archaeology/maps, etc.). I should probably beef-up my user page. Wikipedia might even want some descriptive categories to be added, such as "knows what a slide-rule is for" since I used a slide rule through college, pocket calculators came out my senior year but were about $400 for only basic functions; or "used email prior to 1990", or "programmed with the PDP-11", etc.

And apparently you have developed a notion that I "share a number of fringe beliefs with Thompson". I have not formed an opinion on most of his 'fringe beliefs', such as Marco Polo map of Alaska, etc. But with respect to his 'fringe belief' that there was an extensive north-atlantic traffic that settled Iceland, then Greenland, then Newfoundland Island (in that order), that is actually a mainstream knowledge with respect to Iceland and Greenland. What is undecided is exactly how much 'settlement' they did in North America. Certainly, it was enough to establish one 'settlement' (and now maybe evidence of a second settlement on the southern end of the island, currently under research), though very limited in scope compared to the Greenland settlements, that lasted for centuries but were apparently killed-off by the 'Little Ice Age'. As suggested by the iron forge, it was likely primarily for boat repair, etc. However, establishment of that 'settlement' is good indication they at least circumnavigated the island, giving descriptions to their 'superiors' back in Iceland/Norway. That is where I believe it is self-evident that the 3 maps that Thompson collated onto a single page details a description of that island. I will discuss that under Frisland. One does not need Thompson's words to see the land-form features he points out. Youngnoah (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Youngnoah

None of which any of us have contested, the issue is the identification of Vinland with Fixlandia. It does not matter what you believe, it matters what RS believe, and Thompson is far from being an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

No. The issue is the identification of Newfoundland Island with Fixlanda Island. Vinland is the mainland, as I understand it. Also, the maps speak for themselves.

Actually Vinland is usually thought of an Newfoundland, that is where Viking sites have been found. As far as I know only Thompson has tried to claim that Newfoundland was called Fixlanda (A name that does not (as far as I know) appear in any extent Viking records (unlike Vinland). AS to how amazingly similar maps of Fixlandia are to Newfoundland, well apart from the vast differences they are very similar (in the same way you can find similarities between a cow and an elephant, as long as you ignore the obvious differences).Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This site (http://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/vinland/home/indexen.html) strongly suggests Vinland is further south. The land of wine grapes; which do not grow on Newfoundland. Perhaps your perception needs to change? Youngnoah (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah See also this site: https://www.thoughtco.com/vinland-the-viking-homeland-in-america-173139 Youngnoah (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

This site ( https://northernwoodlands.org/outside_story/article/wild-grape ) considers the entire east coast to be Vinland. The wikipedia website leaves it up in the air. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland Youngnoah (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

Or maybe no one is really sure (and you will not I said Usually thought of, not is). But as far as know no one apart from Thompson has said that Newfound;land was Fixlandia.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Apparently no one is certain exactly what 'Vinland' corresponded to. But it seems that since they were posting a boat-repair settlement on Newfound Island, they were repairing boats navigating those waters, which would have taken them to the mainland, just a few miles away. So certainly they were exploring those areas too. I suspect that the term 'Vinland' referred to all of that; i.e. all the lands west of Greenland. While Newfoundland island apparently doesn't have berries nowadays, it's possible it did before the start of the 'Little Ice Age' which could have killed them off if they were ever there. They are found nowadays on the mainland, further south. Where Leif got his berries from (and they might not have been grapes, but other similar types) is still not certain, either, so far as I've been able to determine. I'll be posting more about the 'Circle Island' anomaly found on all of tthe Fixlanda/Frisland maps, in the Talk:Frisland section shortly. Been busy on other matters with the start of the new year. Youngnoah (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

Please do this using only reliable sources, not Thompson. Doug Weller talk 21:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

More about this topic on the Talk:Frisland page. Youngnoah (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

December 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Frisland, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 20:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

He is not RS and keep this up and you will get a block.Slatersteven (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I placed comments relating to your (Doug Weller, Slatersteven) comments in the Gunnar Thompson comment section. Youngnoah (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Youngnoah

Please stop adding unsourced or improperly sourced content, as you did to Zeno map. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Firstly I fail to see what this has to do with your submission.

Secondly how is it abuse to say "if you do not check facts we will not use you as a source for them"?

Thirdly, the DM article not only uses Wikipedia as a source (whilst condemning it's accuracy) it also gets a number of facts wrong. Thus the article demonstrates why we as a community decided it was no longer reliable, it makes stuff up, it tells lies it gets basic facts wrong. It could not even get this right when it was saying how unfair it was.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Lets keep it to the Portolan Journal. I'm not interested in your beef with Daily Mail. I simply found it unusual to cite to an article that details a user who has extreme social habits, and who is accused of being prejudicial, as a complimentary reference. Youngnoah (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Youngnoah

Errr, I think if you think about it you will realize just how "Daily Mail" that comment is. Try reading my whole user page, it might give you a clue. Ohh and if you do not want to talk about something, then you do not raise it, look at all of the things I have not talked about on your user page.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

But I am happy to now forget about this, as I said I failed to see what relevance it had.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never read the Daily Mail (never, ever ever). I'm in the U.S. and it is a U.K. publication. So OK, dropped. Youngnoah (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Youngnoah

NUVI

Hi, I'm curious if you are affiliated with the company in any way. If you could let me know, that would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

No. Left message on your Talk page. Youngnoah (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spreckels, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salinas River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Matsui Nursery

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Matsui Nursery requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from www2.calstate.edu/impact-of-the-csu/alumni/Honorary-Degrees/Pages/toshikiyo-andy-matsui.aspx. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Your addition to Matsui Nursery has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This was fixed several days ago. Youngnoah (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hartnell College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page UCSC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Kiddie Kapers Parade

Hi, I'm Jbhunley. Youngnoah, thanks for creating Kiddie Kapers Parade!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please consider returning to the article and adding reliable sources to demonstrate this subjects notability

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Jbh ^Talk 03:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and the notability criteria for events. In particular note that "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable" and "the general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context". Without reliable third party sources which place the event in context it is very likely that the article will be nominated for deletion. If you have questions you can contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} me ({{ping|Jbhunley}}) from any talk page or ask the editors at the WP:TEAHOUSE.

(Please follow the blue links. These terms have a specific meaning on Wikipedia and the links provide more details.)

Jbh ^Talk 03:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Lake El Estero (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dennis the Menace

Monterey County attractions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Salinas River

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

fixed both Youngnoah (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Youngnoah

Nomination of Kiddie Kapers Parade for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kiddie Kapers Parade is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiddie Kapers Parade 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Jbh ^Talk 21:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Experience Based Learning

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Experience Based Learning, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It 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 encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Largoplazo (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Experience Based Learning

The article Experience Based Learning has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG: there are a lot of references in the article, but most of them are primary sources or do not show sustained coverage about this company.

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Experience Based Learning, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Largoplazo (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot. Will do hereafter. Youngnoah (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)Youngnoah

January 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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).

Youngnoah (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 this blocking-editor (Bbb23) appears to have a personal bias against one of the individuals referenced favorably in the article that was being created. This was an existing article entitled Caring Institute. It has a website at https://www.caring.org/our-story/ I was not the creator of the original Caring Institute article which was created weeks/months/years ago by others, and edited by others for some time. Today, I edited it for the first time. Shortly after editing it, to add one of the recipients of its "Caring Award", Steve Kirsch, the blocking-editor complained and placed a notice of possible rapid deletion for not being noteworthy. The blocking-editor also edits on the Steve Kirsch page, unfavorably to Steve Kirsch, I discovered after I was blocked. Apparently, he has an animosity to Steve Kirsch for unknown reasons. While I was adding material to the article to show the noteworthiness, when I submitted, it came up that the article had been deleted. This appeared to be vandalism, as there had been no discussion about the basis for a rapid deletion. To correct the vandalism, I then prepared a new article of the same name, adding the names of numerous noteworthy recipients (Muhammad Ali, Bill Clinton, and hundreds of others -see https://www.caring.org/awardees/, and additional information showing it to be noteworthy, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I reduced the inclusion of Steve Kirsch, which had apparently upset the blocker with details of him in the original version, to merely a single reference to his name, linked to the article on him, as well as links on the dozen or so of other noteworth names and their articles. I then published the new and improved version. Shortly thereafter it was deleted as purported "vandalism" on my part, and the blocking editor placed a block on my editing of anything. Youngnoah (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wikipedia has mechanisms for dealing with admin errors. There is Deletion Review for review of deletion decisions. Instead of using this process, you declared an admin action to be "vandalism" and unilaterally reverted the decision. There is no way I am going to unblock you, unless you recognize this was a serious mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

Thank you Phil Knight for reviewing this. Mea culpa. I did not recognize that Bbb23 was an admin. I believed he was a random user, and had deleted the article (a stub, that others prepared, likely several years ago) maliciously. His original proposal for speedy deletion appeared long after the article was initially published, but only a few minutes after I first edited it. His deletion of the article was clearly in response to my editing it to add a reference to Steve Kirsch. It appeared to me that he was not following proper protocol for deletion of a long-standing article, as their was no room for discussion in the talk page - rather just wham, deleted. In the future, I will follow your recommendation for review of Deletions. I'd never had a deletion like this before of an older article, and it had all the hallmarks of vandalism (even if by a senior editor). While speedy deletions happen frequently for new articles, I have never seen a speedy deletion of an older article that I am actively working on.

I should also note that "MrOllie" had reverted my original edit with the notation I needed a better reference to the Caring Award for Steve Kirsch. I had used simply this: https://www.elcaminohealth.org/sites/default/files/migrated-content/page/3666/body-pdf-packet_hbod_091014.pdf So I went and found the link to the organization itself, for the section for the awardees, and provided that as a link as well. https://www.caring.org/awardees/ Then, I went and started editing again to reduce the amount of verbiage for Steve Kirsch to solely his name, and added numerous other names from their webpage of notable awardees. As I recall, these were Pope Francis, Bill Clinton, Muhammad Ali, Daniel Inouye, Dalai Lama, Edward Kennedy, Colin Powell, Billy Graham and Steve Kirsch. All of them have their own bios already in existence, so I believed that would be an good expansion of the stub article to show the types of individuals that are given the Caring Award. This was then published. I was rewarded a few minutes later with its speedy deletion, leading me to believe that that deletion was vandalism. I was in the process of preparing some of the notable members of their Board of Directors (https://www.caring.org/our-board/), such as Patch Adams (you should see the movie about him, it's good), Cal Ripken Jr., and numerous other notable individuals who form their board and approve their hundreds of Awardees. If this is not a noteworthy organization, I don't know what is. I was also in the process of adding various newspaper articles, etc. to show that it is a noteworthy organization, so as to beef-up the "stub" article, in accordance with Wikipedia request. Then I was rudely interrupted by Bbb23.

I have since gone back to the Steve Kirsch page and noted that MrOllie has frequently edited that page, as well, so he has some vested interest in Steve Kirsch.

In any event, I apologize for having considered that the Bbb23 deletion was vandalism without realizing he was an admin. In the future, I will follow your suggested process for review of erroneous speedy deletions (if they ever come up - as I said, I've never had this situation before where an existing article that I am editing is recommended for deletion merely because I am editing it to include information someone doesn't like, as that is against all Wikipedia norms). YoungnoahYoungnoah (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Just for your future understanding: only admins can delete a page (in contrast to posting a request to delete a page), so it followed from the deletion by Bbb23 that Bbb23 was an admin. Largoplazo (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo:

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thank you Largoplazo for reviewing this block. Your comment above is well-noted.

However, I was 'lured' into reverting Bbb23 by the system itself, without realizing I was reverting an admin. Specifically, I had already successfully edited Caring Institute several times, as I mentioned above. This was in the space of about one hour or less (I took a little time off for dinner). When I edited again, and then submitted, I was surprised to find, instead of the edit properly taking, it came back with a statement that 'A page by this name does not exist - would you like to create one'. I should have recognized that that meant that the page had been deleted by an admin, but I did not. Possibly because I hadn't been editing in about 2 years, and/or lack of experience, or both. In any event, I was prompted to create the page to bring it back into existence, so I did. It had been a 'Stub' article to begin with, so I simply added a brief introduction, and the material that I was submitting for editing of the original article.

It did not dawn on me that an admin would simply delete an article without any discussion first in the Talk section. While I have previously created articles (see my history above), many of which were flagged for speedy deletion, not all of them have been deleted after they were beefed up, and the ones that were deleted had allowed a Talk discussion over the course of a day or so. They were not simply immediately deleted after being flagged, which would be very counter-productive. After they were deleted, I never went back to try to get them created again.

The Caring Institute was not an Orphan Article (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_Wikipedia_Works/Appendix_D). Rather it was linked from numerous other articles, including Yitzchak Dovid Grossman, Mother Wright, William F. Austin, Maria S. Gomez ‎and Steve Kirsch in its Talk section. These are now all dead links, thanks to the deletion by Bbb23.

I have done some further research on MrOllie. You can link to his UserPage from the Talk page of Steve Kirsch, as he was repeatedly at loggerheads with steve kirsch himself, who was attempting to edit his own living bio. I was unaware of this when I made a minor edit to Kirsch's page, by adding back in the Caring Award he had received (this has since been reverted by MrOllie, apparently after I was blocked). I had been reading in the bottommost section, which is copied below:

"'@Tiwaking: It is unknown as an award, and is non-notable and the reference is primary, meaning is very poor. WP:SECONDARY sources are the gold standard, for BLP articles. If there was a newspaper reporting on it, and it wasn't PR or paid for spam/advertising then it might be possible, but not with that reference. scope_creepTalk 12:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC) Okay I understand. I will go through the 30 other Wikipedia page bios which have received this award and update their references too make sure their references are correct 103.250.118.34 (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC) (this comment was from me sorry) Tiwaking (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC) @Tiwaking: If there is 30 folk have it, then it might be worth creating an article on it, but there must be good secondary sources on it. There is so many awards given out now, in many cases specifically to stymie Wikipedia notability policies and the people who use them. So many are junk. But if they have been giving this one for years and its got a provable history with good references, and it is considered prestigious, then why not create an article on it. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 12:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC) The Caring Institute Wikipedia page mentions the Caring Awards, I guess that section could be expanded but I dont know how to do that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caring_Institute I will make sure to post some links on the bios and ask someone to make sure that the rewardees are properly cited on their Wikipedia pages. All current pages with the award only link the Caring Institute Tiwaking (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)"

My take from that was that the Caring Award, given to Kirsch, was indeed notable because when I viewed their webpage, they have about 200 Awardees, a few of the more notable ones listed above. So I put it back into the Kirsch article (his Caring Award had been deleted some time back), copy exactly what it had said previously, and gave a new cite. Then, I went to the Caring Institute article referenced in the Talk section, and began editing it to improve it, as it was only a stub. I had at least three successful edits. Then, as mentioned, as I was editing again to add members of their board (Patch Adams et al., as referenced above)), after I clicked on 'the Submit button, instead of the most recent edit showing in the article, it came up instead that that article did not exist.

I had noticed that a few minutes earlier, after one of my edits, someone had placed a 'speedy-removal' request for the article. I believed I had about a day to get it improved, and after finishing my edits, I would go to the Talk page and explain how I had improved it, and why it should not be deleted. That was my understanding of the procedure if someone places a 'speedy delete' tag on an article. I was not expecting it to be deleted by an admin just a few minutes after that tag was placed.

What I suspect took place was that MrOllie, after seeing I was editing that page, placed a speedy delete tag on it to bring an admin in to delete it, and Bbb23, who does lots of sockpuppet blocking on a frequent (dozens of times in short time span, as per his User page) obliged and deleted the page, not realizing that someone was in the process of editing it to make it better.

If it is worthy of being deleted as not being notable, that should first be discussed in the talk page for the article. That never happened. This is particularly true for articles that have existed for some time (possibly years, though I don't know when it came into existence, but it was discussed in the Kirsch talk page last December 2021), and have been edited by numerous editors without any prior request for deletion (which was the case).

I also note that MrOllie and Bbb23 both have edited extensively on the Steve Kirsch page pertaining to Covid-19, and possibly believed I was a sock puppet of his. I am not. I was wrongly accused of sock puppetry once before (see above), and I suspect that was the suspicion again.

In any event, I don't believe that I have been engaged in "disruptive editing" merely by improving the Caring Institute page. That seems to be a very uncaring attitude, not supported by the facts. While true, I should have recognized that it was an admin that had deleted the article, I was caught unawares that that was what was going on. One has to ask, how can any one editor choose to delete an article without ANY discussion first with other editors, if it is a long-standing article? Because that seemed implausible, I had believed it was a vandalism delete, not knowing that only admins can do a delete, due to lack of experience, I did not recognize that by creating the article anew, I was running afoul of a harried admin who is very busy having to block numerous sock puppets on a daily basis. YoungnoahYoungnoah (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm not satisfied that you aren't editing with a WP:COI. Going back and looking, a variety of your edits seem to be possibly COI, such as your edits to Vivint and its progeny. Same for the caring institute. If you have a conflict of interest, please say so. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have no conflict of interest. I am not employed by Caring Institute, and never have been. I'd never even heard of it until the day I started editing it. That is bizarre to suggest such. It is composed of many philanthropists who got together to honor other philanthropists. I suppose I should feel honored that you believe me to be a philanthropist, which I am. As for Vivint, I did work for them briefly a long time ago, for less than one year. I haven't worked for them for the past dozen years, and I don't believe I have a COI, though I did have knowledge of the company. That is likewise true for other companies I've posted about or created articles for - I am not employed by them, never have been, with the exception of eHealth, though my postings I don't believe would be a COI. If that should have a COI disclosure in any future postings, I don't mind doing such, but it's been a while since I posted there as well. Someone else started that article many years before I ever posted on it.

I will elaborate more if requested. Youngnoah (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Youngnoah