|
User talk:PenmanWarriorConflict of InterestFirst of all, you need to be aware that creating sock puppets to circumvent a temporary block will get you a block indefinitely. If you are the same person as IP editor 69.117.93.145, you need to please stop what you are doing. Secondly, I'll ask you the same question that was asked of IP editor 69.117.93.145; do you have a conflict of interest in editing the Michele Evans article? Lastly, the content that you have restored to Michele Evans cites sources that do not even mention her. So they cannot be used to verify anything about her on the article. Citing sources that verify info about other people is pointless if there is nothing cited, other than Evan's own book, to connect them with her. And even if there was, this would constitute original synthesis, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. I'd also question the relevance of any of it. Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
January 2024
Your submission at Articles for creation: Michele Evans (February 19)
Proposed topic ban
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Michele Evans
A tag has been placed on Draft:Michele Evans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time. 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. ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
February 2024 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DMacks (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Michele Evans (February 20)
 PenmanWarrior (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: This came out of nowhere. I have been adding valid great sources. Totally confused here as to why adding the New York Times and Rocky Mountain News is considered disruptive.PenmanWarrior (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC) Decline reason: This came out of the WP:ANI thread. If you do not understand why your action are disruptive, there are no grounds for lifting the block. PhilKnight (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2024 (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.
@PhilKnight: --- I don't understand for the following reasons: The new article written yesterday by The New York Times is a significant development which warrants a revisit and provides sufficient evidence of the subjects notability for Wikipedia standards. The article meets the following criteria for a reliable and independent source: - It provides significant coverage of Evans and her personal story as a former inmate at Rikers Island who became an author. It describes the main themes and messages of her book, the challenges and opportunities she faced in writing and publishing it etc. - It is reliable, as The New York Times is a well-known and respected newspaper that has a high editorial standard and a reputation for accuracy and integrity. It is not a self-published or questionable source that lacks credibility or verification. - It is independent of the subject, as it is not connected to Evans or her book in any way. It is not a press release, a review, an interview, or a promotional piece that is intended to endorse or advertise her book. It is a neutral and objective report that presents both the positive and negative aspects of her story and her work. - It provides photos taken by the New York Times which are prominently featured at the beginning and throughout the article. - It is secondary, as it is not a primary source that directly reflects Evans's own views or experiences. It is a journalistic article that analyzes and evaluates her book and her story from an external perspective, using multiple sources of information and evidence. The article from The New York Times passes the notability check for Wikipedia inclusion, and can be used as a reliable and independent source to support the creation or improvement of a Wikipedia article about Evans or her book. This new Rocky Mountain News article supports Michele Evans's Wikipedia notability in the following ways: - It provides significant coverage of Evans's career. - It is reliable, as it is from the Rocky Mountain News, a reputable newspaper that was published in Denver, Colorado from 1859 to 2009. It is not a self-published or questionable source that lacks credibility or verification. - It is independent of the subject, as it is not connected to Evans in any way. It is not a press release, a review, or a promotional piece that is intended to endorse or advertise her work. It is a neutral and objective report. - It is secondary, as it is not a primary source that directly reflects Evans's own views or experiences. It is a journalistic article. I disagree that the article from the Rocky Mountain News is a fluff article. A fluff article is one that is superficial, trivial, or irrelevant to the topic. However, the article from the Rocky Mountain News is relevant, informative, and substantial. It provides significant coverage of Evans's career. It also gives some background information about her life and education. The article is not superficial or trivial, as it does not focus on gossip, rumors, or personal details that are unrelated to her work. It is not irrelevant, as it shows how Evans achieved success and recognition in a competitive and demanding field. Therefore, the article from the Rocky Mountain News is not a fluff article, but a reliable and independent source. In addition the complaints of me simply responding to alerts I get are being phrased as me doing something wrong. As a new editor, there are many things I am unaware of, as to be expected. A certain amount of consideration should be afforded me, instead of attacking me and making it into something it's not. How am I supposed to know responding to an alert I get is frowned upon??? I ask a simple valid question and an editor decides they don't like it, therefore I am branded as doing something wrong?? I'm just lost here. Am I not supposed to say anything??? The assertion by the user who launched the complaint about me you mention, that they thought they were 'done with this' is quite disturbing and reveals the users serious bias that the subject could never accomplish anything in the future. This is not a trivial thing! Luckily we live in a time of technology! I have run the new articles provided against the posted rules of wikipedia, especially the notability criteria, claimed to be missing. Every time, the unbiased technology concludes the two new articles pass this criteria and even list out the reasons why they resolve the notability complaint lodged against this wiki page.
Campaign to eliminate Michele Evans from WikipediaRecently became aware of multiple editors attempting to eliminate Ms. Evans from Wikipedia. This must stop! Will be adding details. PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC) @Kathleen's bike: violates Wikipedia standards again: WP:BLUDGEON, edit warring, disruptive editing While technically not done within the 24hr timeframe, the essence of, three-revert rule was also enacted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1196841532 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1208941127 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209368498 Kathleen's bike claimed "See guidance at WP:ON:US regarding the repeated restoration of content whose inclusion has been disputed" However only one restoration had been made and the inclusion of this book in Rikers Island had never been disputed. Kathleen's bike also recommended deletion of Michele Evans "Delete Escape Orbit summarises things easily enough, fails notability guidelines at the present time. Kathleen's bike (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)" @Escape Orbit: comments Kathleen's bike was referring to: "Author. Self published only, so unlikely to be notable Software Engineer. Not notable. Creating Tiger Woods' website is not sufficient, and source cited does not support this claim. Sports Reporter. Possibly, but entirely unsourced and almost purposely vague. A single op-ed in The New York Times written by her." Escape Orbit continues: "Again we are agreed. The sources currently on the article are not adequate in demonstrating notability. So I urge you to find the existence of suitable sources, and the matter will be resolved. Others have tried and failed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)" Kathleen's bike herself admits Escape Orbit sumarises things. Escape Orbit said this would be resolved. His issues were addressed with the introduction of the new articles: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html It is resolved. Escape Orbit has been asked to stick by his word and resolve as promised, but as of this writing, has not. In addition Kathleen's bike violated Harrasment Hounding WP:HOUND WP:HOUNDING WP:WIKIHOUNDING WP:FOLLOWING Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. Kathleen's bike engaged in "an attempted outing". Stated belief of editor's identity/real name and even opened a complaint to do so in order to enhance this alleged outing. WP:ANI "Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)"
On the subject of not sticking to promises:
"I have to note you as a hostile commentator. In addition to you incessantly posting to my talk page, you suggested I should be barred from writing about a subject simply because you did not like my valid question to you. Can you please place your energy and focus somewhere other than on me? Thank you! PS. Nobody says the source was used by itself. Currently, there are 58 sources on the page. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" "Sure thing, I'll leave you alone. Good luck with your draft. Qcne (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC) "However, @Theroadislong, I am minded to reject if you agree? Qcne (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)"
"I may have time to categorically review every single reference on Friday in your Draft and write up my findings, which would then hopefully put to bed this entire issue as either a Yes She is WikiNotable or No She is Not WikiNotable and then, either way, no more of your time or Wikipedia volunteer time will be spent discussing this. Qcne (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)"
"Sorry I have no idea what you are referring to, you can submit for review and another reviewer will take a look, I will not review again. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" Theroadislong refuses/won't/doesn't respond to requests to address major source and instead goes back and adds comments to article:
Finally, Theroadislong admits: "I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" "Ok, yet another editor admitting they did not read the sources before declining the article. A pattern has emerged. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" Theroadislong then goes back and declines the article after saying twice he would not review the article again. "Submission declined on 21 February 2024 by Theroadislong (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted. If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. Where to get help How to improve a draft Improving your odds of a speedy review Editor resources Declined by Theroadislong 3 hours ago. Last edited by Theroadislong 2 seconds ago. Reviewer: Inform author."
"Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)" I would ask @Daniel Case: to equally block Kathleen's bike for edit warring and violating other Wikipedia standards. While you are doing that a WP:BLUDGEON review is warranted for @Theroadislong: and @Qcne: and any other actions I may not be aware of. Also please advise how to handle/report Kathleen's bike for the above-stated behavior as I am a new editor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209141675
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209359829
@Muboshgu: "PenmanWarrior, that NY Times piece from yesterday would add to her argument for passing WP:GNG, but I cannot tell how much as it is behind a paywall and I am not a subscriber. However, the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans appears to be overwhelming and I doubt one new piece will change that. Since the draft is basically identical to the deleted article, save for a sentence or two based on that new NYT article, I think it would be inappropriate to accept the draft. If you believe that the new NYT article changes things, make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)" @Theroadislong: "I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" I am a new editor but I can't imagine declining an article without reading MAJOR SOURCES is appropriate. Someone please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenmanWarrior (talk • contribs) 14:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Continued campaign in WP:ANI: "More WP:BATTLEGROUND editing here [165] today. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" "Can I propose a motion to block as WP:NOTHERE? Qcne (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" "@Theroadislong @Qcne. I would once again ask the continued harassment be discontinued. Condensing facts into one comprehensive space and asking for advice on how to proceed is not any of the above implied/accused/linked circumstances. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Michele Evans (February 21)
AfC notification: Draft:Michele Evans has a new comment
AfC notification: Draft:Michele Evans has a new comment
AfC notification: Draft:Michele Evans has a new comment
AfC notification: Draft:Michele Evans has a new comment
Re: Your question on appealHello PenmanWarrior, I noticed that you left this comment on the deletion review noticeboard after your request for a review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans was closed with the deletion endorsed by the community. Your comment asks As it stands, that discussion was your appeal, and your appeal was declined by the community. I note that you are active at Draft:Michele Evans, where you are working to try to bring the article up to standards. What would help the reviewers on that draft might be something simple: if you were to go to the draft's talk page and list the three best sources you have for demonstrating significant coverage of this individual by independent reliable sources, along a brief (two-to-three succinct sentences) explanation on why you think those sources demonstrate significant coverage, that would be helpful. If all three of the best sources are in the context of one event, you may want to include a fourth source that provides significant coverage in some other context. I can't guarantee that the article will be accepted, but structuring your arguments in this way will be more clear to reviewers than they are presently. Cheers, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being a single purpose account, continued disruptive editing, refusal to accept advice from experienced editors verging on battleground mentality. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC) PenmanWarrior (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason:
Oh the irony I was blocked for simply following the advice/instructions of an experienced editor. "you are free to take any gripes to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. To be clear I have only reviewed your draft ONCE. Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" However in doing as instructed, I got blocked. I was told I was free to take this issue to the very place I did. And subsequently got blocked for. "This thread was the final straw. I'd been monitoring this issue for the past couple of days. I have indefinitely blocked the editor - "Single purpose account, continued disruptive editing, refusal to accept advice from experienced editors verging on battleground mentality". As always, welcome review of the block from the community here. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" And also following advice of another experienced editor: "I note that you are active at Draft:Michele Evans, where you are working to try to bring the article up to standards. What would help the reviewers on that draft might be something simple: if you were to go to the draft's talk page and list the three best sources you have for demonstrating significant coverage of this individual by independent reliable sources, along a brief (two-to-three succinct sentences) explanation on why you think those sources demonstrate significant coverage, that would be helpful. If all three of the best sources are in the context of one event, you may want to include a fourth source that provides significant coverage in some other context. I can't guarantee that the article will be accepted, but structuring your arguments in this way will be more clear to reviewers than they are presently. Cheers, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" My advice taking is evidenced in me doing as instructed by @Red-tailed hawk: in the Draft:Michele Evans talk page: The following substantial, independent, secondary sources have been located and clear up expressed concerns about existing sources: * https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb * https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ ----The new articles written in the last couple of days by The New York Times and The Times (London) are a significant development that warrant revisiting and provide sufficient evidence of the subject's notability for Wikipedia standards. The articles meets the following criteria for a reliable and independent source: - They provide significant coverage of Evans and her personal story as a former inmate at Rikers Island who became an author. It describes the main themes and messages of her book, the challenges and opportunities she faced in writing and publishing it etc. - They are reliable, as The New York Times is a well-known and respected newspaper that has a high editorial standard and a reputation for accuracy and integrity. It is not a self-published or questionable source that lacks credibility or verification. - They are independent of the subject, as it is not connected to Evans or her book in any way. It is not a press release, a review, an interview, or a promotional piece that is intended to endorse or advertise her book. It is a neutral and objective report that presents both the positive and negative aspects of her story and her work. - They provide photos taken by the New York Times which are prominently featured at the beginning and throughout the article. - They are secondary, as it is not a primary source that directly reflects Evans's own views or experiences. It is a journalistic article that analyzes and evaluates her book and her story from an external perspective, using multiple sources of information and evidence. The articles from The New York Times and The Times (London) pass the notability check for Wikipedia inclusion and can be used as a reliable and independent source to support the creation or improvement of a Wikipedia article about Evans or her book. ----This new Rocky Mountain News article supports Michele Evans's Wikipedia notability in the following ways: - It provides significant coverage of Evans's career. - It is reliable, as it is from the Rocky Mountain News, a reputable newspaper that was published in Denver, Colorado from 1859 to 2009. It is not a self-published or questionable source that lacks credibility or verification. - It is independent of the subject, as it is not connected to Evans in any way. It is not a press release, a review, or a promotional piece that is intended to endorse or advertise her work. It is a neutral and objective report. - It is secondary, as it is not a primary source that directly reflects Evans's own views or experiences. It is a journalistic article. PenmanWarrior (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC) -------- How can I move on to other subjects, when this one keeps getting targeted. Just because I am working on one thing at a time doesn't mean I didn't plan on doing other things in the future. Not everybody multi-tasks. There was no battle ground mentality. I raised valid concerns as instructed. I found out about this block when I went to publish as @Theroadislong suggested. I have continuously asked for advice. This once again is an attempt to prevent the now sourced article from getting out.
Decline reason: Not only does this fail to address the reasons for the block, but it also repeats much of what led to the block, thereby confirming that the block should stay. JBW (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (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. PenmanWarrior (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the state now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Michele_Evans&diff=prev&oldid=1209614761 As clearly evidenced, all references/wording to relevant situations that make her notable according to Wikipedia standards have been removed and are now only sources buried in references. A section was added about Journalism but didn't mention her biggest accomplishment in the New York Times. And oddly put software engineering under Journalism. In reading this article you would never know without fine-tooth examination, that Evans was published in the Times, or that her book was featured along with Evans herself, in both the New York Times and The Times in London. Those are significant accomplishments and deserve to be known. In addition, every mention of the contents of her novels has been removed. Her blood family was removed. Her husband is mentioned but not her niece, who was removed and whose death was prominent. Her husband is not notable. Again, I am a new editor who has been following many editors' instructions and keep getting pinged for it. Even with the article as it stands right now, it meets Wikipedia standards. We will see if anybody publishes it, as non-biased editors would do. PenmanWarrior (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
PenmanWarrior (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Declined for reasons stated : "Not only does this fail to address the reasons for the block, but it also repeats much of what led to the block, thereby confirming that the block should stay. JBW (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)" ________ Reasons for the block were in fact addressed. They were specific. ________ "Not only does this fail to address the reasons for the block" rebuttal: #refusal to accept advice from experienced editors verging on battleground mentality ## Followed advice of @Theroadislong to submit grievance ## Followed advice of @Red-tailed hawk #continued disruptive editing ## Have not edited the article since yesterday around 2pm and only did so to appease @Theroadislong concern (which also demonstrates accepting advice and teamwork) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Michele_Evans&diff=prev&oldid=1209352708 #single purpose account ## Just because I am working on one thing at a time doesn't mean I didn't plan on doing other things in the future. Not everybody multi-tasks. "repeats much of what led to the block" #Raised valid concerns as/where instructed. Incorrectly interpreted as battleground and was blocked. #Gave examples of my cooperation. Incorrectly labeled as repeating. ____________________________ Summary #Pointing out facts is allowed. #Raising issues also allowed/suggested. #Deletion review high-jacked. #Validity of sources still not discussed. #Consistently worked and implemented editors advice. PenmanWarrior (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Decline reason: Enough. Its clear to all you haven't read a word of what we've written to help you. As a result of your IDHT mindset, I've removed your ability to edit this talk page. I'm not going to spend the rest of eternity swatting down you block appeals because you can accept that you've lost. We've all get better things to do than coddle you. Now either read the guide to appealing block and address you block correctly, or find some place else to have your 2-year old temper tandrum, because it will not be on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:26, 23 February 2024 (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 know you feel like you have been thrown under the bus despite receiving a lot of good advice. However, as you say Now, on to the subject of getting unblocked - blaming others will not get you unblocked. You are the primary reason why your account is blocked, even if others made you mad or upset or said things that you just had to get back at them for. If you do decide to file an unblock request, focus on what you will do differently, and how you will work towards improving Wikipedia. There is no rush to do this - your draft is not going anywhere for at least six months, so maybe take a week or two to think and reflect on what's happened here before asking for another unblock (which, it appears you were not informed, will take place through WP:UTRS). Primefac (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Please do not email other editors asking them to make edits on your behalf while blocked. That is a violation of the block policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Michele EvansHello, PenmanWarrior. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Michele Evans". In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC) |
