User talk:Cencoredme

This is Cencoredme's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pennsylvania child sex abuse ring (December 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ernestchuajiasheng was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pennsylvania child sex abuse ring and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Pennsylvania child sex abuse ring, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RedFlame (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Cencoredme, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! RedFlame (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pennsylvania child sex abuse ring (December 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lacypaperclip was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pennsylvania child sex abuse ring and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Pennsylvania child sex abuse ring, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Lacypaperclip (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Pennsylvania child sex abuse ring has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Pennsylvania child sex abuse ring. Thanks! Lacypaperclip (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Hello there, I have moved your article, Altoona-Johnstown_child_sex_abuse_scandal, to the Draft namespace, for it is not yet ready as an article yet. In the draft space, editors can review your submission, and decide to accept or decline it, while also giving helpful tips as to how to improve it. Your article is located at Draft:Altoona-Johnstown_child_sex_abuse_scandal. Thanks! The content of this article is extremely controversial, while I am sure it is okay, you have only made 19 edits with this account, and there are potential WP:BLP problems and whatnot. Needs to be checked. I have removed unsourced content, if it doesn't have a <ref> next to what it says then it should be removed. !dave 19:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC) No worries friend, I took some tips from a good friend who has been an admin on Wikipedia for some time. 90% of named perpetrators are dead, and the remaining are named in the public domain anyway, please do not take too long though![reply]

ThanksCencoredme (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal. Thanks! SeraphWiki (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal

Hi Cencoredme, I've removed the references to any people which the Grand Jury report does not identify as deceased. It is important that, especially with contentious issues such as this, we ensure that reliable sources are being used for any person living or dead and that, when living people are involved, we ensure that the WP:BLP policy is followed closely. Also note that the burden is on people adding material which has been challenged to show that it is compliant with the BLP policy not on people removing it. That means, that if you (re)add accusations against people to the article you need to demonstrate that the addition is compliant with the BLP policy (either that they have been convicted, or that they are dead) by including reliable sources. Failure to do may result in you getting blocked to ensure compliance with the policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My sources are all reliable, such as the Guardian, Reuters, etc. I see you have removed living people even when they have been accused of crimes and settlements reached out of court via the "payments" why is that? They are guilty and have confessed to crimes. Why are you removing those ones?

I will also remove the blog source and use a better one.Cencoredme (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a reliable source which shows that they admitted to what they'd done and only what they admitted is in the article then it's likely fine. But the burden of reliable sources is on the editor who wants it in the article (that is, having a reliable source in <ref> tags) not the person who removes. In this situation, you need to prove with reliable sources that they are either dead, have been convicted or have admitted it (not only that they settled out of court, but admitted to it). If you (or anyone who wants it in the article) can't do that, then it stays out. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pennsylvania child sex abuse ring (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lacypaperclip was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pennsylvania child sex abuse ring and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Pennsylvania child sex abuse ring, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Lacypaperclip (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lacypaperclip was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Lacypaperclip (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Lacypaperclip (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Draft:Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lacypaperclip (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For your information

All wikipedia editors and reviewers work as volunteers on the wikipedia project. You need to change your tone when posting messages like these: YOU are the reviewer, it is YOUR job to check the references. They are CLEARLY stated as deceased.) which is found here [1] or there will be consequences whick may lead up to the removal of your editing ability. Lacypaperclip (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps use your responsibility better? I said nothing that was incorrect, perhaps let someone else review it next time huh?. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder as you immediately reacted with DELETE THIS NOW. Instead of reading other admins comments on the page and how it did indeed comply with BLP rules.

The problem is yours clearly.Cencoredme (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I am sure you saw here: [2] my colleague Darkness Shines agrees with me. Lacypaperclip (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw, however clearly this is about living people, of which the ones I named are not. Therefore BLP again does not apply.Cencoredme (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lacypaperclip was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Lacypaperclip (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lacypaperclip was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Lacypaperclip (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Draft:Altoona-Johnstown child sex abuse scandal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Katie^talk 15:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I get blocked for the 3rr rule but Lacypaperclip does not? Color me surprised Cencoredme (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

• To help you if you decide to request unblock again, please note that removing contentious material that violates the BLP policy is an explicit exemption to the 3RR rule. That is why the other editor was not blocked. You were warned, you continued to reinsert the material, and you were blocked as a result. You need to convince another administrator that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not continue this behavior in the future. Katie^talk 15:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting view of BLP violations when they aren't living people? Not sure that works as intended. These aren't living people. They are deceased and I provided proof (some obituaries even) and yet still... declined. The editor that continued to blank the page clearly didn't actually read my sources, which is to be expected.Cencoredme (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, you keep claiming, they are all dead. Up near the top of this page you said:

No worries friend, I took some tips from a good friend who has been an admin on Wikipedia for some time. 90% of named perpetrators are dead, and the remaining are named in the public domain anyway, please do not take too long though! ThanksCencoredme (talk) 3:44 pm, 3 January 2018, Wednesday (12 days ago) (UTC−6)

So which is it ALL or 90% dead. You are contradicting yourself. Lacypaperclip (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read better? This was when I had put all perps into the article regardless of whether they were dead, then a fellow editor cleaned it up and left only those described as "deceased" in the Grand Jury report in the article. So as I have said again, they are all dead, and the one that is alive and mentioned is due to them being convicted. Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension? You know by actually reading the jury report as a reviewer should do?Cencoredme (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should also be better at Math? if 90% are dead and the one alive is mentioned because he is the one that was convicted then he would make the 10% that is alive. Seriously you are struggling very much here with basic facts.Cencoredme (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, more insulting personal attacks. Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension? You know by actually reading the jury report as a reviewer should do?, Perhaps you should read better?, Maybe you should also be better at Math?, Seriously you are struggling very much here with basic facts. I would ask that the block time should be lengthened or perhaps talk page access be turned off. Usage of a talk page to make multiple personal attacks while blocked does not look like a good practice. Thank you. Lacypaperclip (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YOU came to my talk page to try and correct me and call me out on "contradiction" you personally sought out conflict with me when you clearly didn't read what my edits actually said. That is not my problem. Again YOU are the one that should read the information I provided before simply declining an article. It is not my fault that you clearly did not do this. Maybe next time don't try and call someone out on something when it is you who is wrong.Cencoredme (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lacypaperclip: Please leave this alone. You are running the risk of appearing to indulge in grave-dancing.

@Cencoredme: Your talk-page access at this point is for the purpose of making an unblock request with a reasonable chance of success. Continuing to use it for things other than unblock requests, or making repeated requests that have no hope of being accepted, will lead to your talk-page access being revoked. GoldenRing (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well this has been changed to a checkuser block, so now it seems to be a completely different issue than 3RR. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 17:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]