From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to Wikipedia! We could really use your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Xenanthropism) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Dskluz 00:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:
- Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
- Make your case on the article's talk page.
Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. IrishGuy talk 01:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Reasons include: sockpuppetry to repeatedly create pages with nonsense/copyvio/made-up content, creating the article Xenantropism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) as a personal attack against another user. Sandstein 11:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.
Request reason: "I suggested that one of the reviewers was biased and pointed out that he/she was declaring the content gibberish while all terms in the article could be found in online dictionaries. Then, when I was accused of plagurism, the original author of the information editted the page himself and pointed this out in the discussion. While I did engage friends who were familiar with the content to edit and support the article, I in no way presented myself as someone else to further my own cause. How could I help create an article as a personal attack, as the reasons for my block cite?--the article (were it still existent) would have shown that it in no way attacked anyone and simply stated the basic premise of Miller's philosophy of xenanthropism. This content was neither offensive, unfounded, libelous, stolen nor incoherent; and, the content neither promoted nor painted poorly Miller, xenanthropism, nor critics of the philosophy. The admin who repeatedly demanded the article's deletion (Irishguy) is a university student who has a history of deleting articles that he personally disagrees with (and a history of a higher deletion rate per review). His decision to delete and bureauacratize may have had more to do with his political or personal beliefs then the article's content. If pointing out such things is considered an "attack" on another Wikipedian, then how does Wikipedia keep from slipping into some sort of subjectively-molded oligarchy? In the future, I'll use the sandbox and have my citations prepared for posting, as my mistake was creating the article before it was of the highest quality and useability I could manage. Indefinitely preventing me from participating in this free and open (and remarkably successful) wiki due to the opinions of two or less people is nothing short of virtual tyranny and a slap in the face of the whole concept of Wikipedia."
Decline reason: "Xenanthropism was deleted for being a blatant copyright violation, in direct violation of policy. Xenantropism, on the other hand, you created as an attack page against another user, also a policy violation. Instead of "going to war" with other users, it's much preferred that you use talk pages to develop consensus about an appropriate course of action. I would need some reason to believe that you're committed to such ideas before unblocking. Luna Santin 08:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)"
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.
[edit] User's Response to Review:
The error there was creating the article before editing had finished--he's the one who gave it the final polish anyway before the wikinihilists came and threw it all away. Good call on the other page--I don't dispute that, and encourage its deletion since it is a nonsensecal entry. How would I go about proving myself in the arena when the arena is off limits? Two users (who are not me, conspiracy theorists) have been blocked simply for posting on the discussion page of the article entry. And now, no one is able to see the basis of the original argument. I've added value in the form of content and presentation to a variety of articles with my user account or (if I'm lazy) my IP, and would like to continue to do so.
The original author (Clint Miller, i.e., User:Amor Fati) granted permission, and his content was used as a template. The error there was creating the article before editing had finished--he's the one who gave it the final polish anyway before the wikinihilists came and threw it all away. Good call on the other page--I don't dispute that, and encourage its deletion since it is a nonsensecal entry. How would I go about proving myself in the arena when the arena is off limits? Two users (who are not me, conspiracy theorists) have been blocked simply for posting on the discussion page of the article entry. And now, no one is able to see the basis of the original argument. I've added value in the form of content and presentation to a variety of articles with my user account or (if I'm lazy) my IP, and would like to continue to do so.
I'll tell you what: If you come up with a version of an article for Xenanthropism (for example, on this talk page) that at least cites reliable sources for who uses this term to mean what, I'll gladly make it visible again - and then possibly nominate it for deletion so that the community of editors may decide. Please read WP:NOR, WP:NOT and WP:RS before writing a new version of the article, though. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
So how could I possibly do that when the person who has the power prevents me from even submitting an article on the talk page? Also, he requested its deletion several times before errors were corrected. And now I can't ask that amor_fati's account be allowed access, since he was blocked and accused of being me. *huff huff huff*Blazingnikons 08:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Update:
User Amor_Fati's account has been reinstated. The accusations were proved invalid. And me?
This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request.
Request reason: "I had to place another unblock on this page since I had no means of contacting any administrators or users to appeal my case. Rather than left to sit abandoned in a corner of the web, this is an information appeal on the following points:
Admin Sandstein offered to review an improved version of the article if I submit it on the talk page, but I can't submit anything anywhere due to the block.
Admin Luna Santin informed me that she'd be willing to rescind the block of my account if I were able to provide her "some reason to believe" that I'm "committed to such ideas (of Wikipedian conduct)," which is impossible as long as the block remains.
Could someone explain to me how I can appeal this block since I can't even talk to anyone on Wikipedia, other than through this lost, litle user page?"
Decline reason: "No. You remained indefinitely blocked. CheckUser confirmed that you violated the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy by creating the account User:Philophile as well as Wikipedia:No personal attacks by creating the attack page Xenantropism. -- Netsnipe ► 07:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)"
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.
I'm not an administrator, but when you use the unblock template it does draw attention to yourself. I know I'm not being helpfull, but... umm yeah. ---J.S (T/C) 21:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
