User talk:KevinErskine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Kevin Erskine. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as the text has been restored from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. WriterListener 20:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kevin Erskine. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. WriterListener 20:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if you believe that Kevin Erskine must be deleted. It seems quite notable. However if you feel that the page should not exist, then please do not blank it, but rather put it up for deletion where the community will vote for its existence. Blanking the page does not delete it. --WriterListener 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to List of Richmonders. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. WriterListener 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please try to reply on my talk pages for future purposes. I keep putting it back, because your act is considerd vandalism. As i said if you want that article to be deleted, then put it up for deletion on WP:AFD. Editing your name out of some articles will be considered vandalism--WriterListener 21:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Kevin Erskine, you will be blocked from editing. WriterListener 21:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Again I repeat that blanking pages does not delete them. Please read my above messages. --WriterListener 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure whether you are reading my messages. If you want that page deleted, please do so at WP:AFD--WriterListener 21:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

KevinErskine 21:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)"WriterListener" Don't you have anything better to do than follow me around restoring edits I make about myself on an unauthorized page?

[edit] Your help desk question

I responded to your question at the help desk; I'll do so here as well. If indeed you are Kevin Erksine, you should be aware that editing your own article represents a conflict of interest under Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Articles needn't be authorized by their subjects. Is there something in the article that you dispute as untrue? You should familiarize yourself with guidelines for biographies of living people as well. If there is a factual mistake in the article or an unsourced claim, please let me know. You can do so here or on my talk page. Into The Fray ^T/C 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Erskine

I also offered some suggestions for handling this situation within guidelines at the Help desk. Since you are at the moment unable to do so, I have listed the matter for consideration at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Kevin_Erskine. I hope they can address the article in a way that will satisfy your concerns. --Moonriddengirl 22:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire "Family" section from the article as it was not sourced. Into The Fray ^T/C 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

KevinErskine 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Thank you for making these edits. It is creepy and disconcerting to see an unwanted entry about yourself with personal information. I am appalled that anyone can post these things, but it is like pulling teeth to have them removed!

I have further removed unsourced information (years of graduation, etc) from the article, as well as adjusted its layout somewhat. Hopefully this will allay some of your concerns. Please consider working "within the system" in the future. Cheers, Into The Fray ^T/C 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This "system" is scary

KevinErskine 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Thanks. ITF, I appreciate your assisting me with this. I'm still put out by a "system" that allows anyone (and that anyone is apparently a psychopathic stalker) to post anything, but doesn't allow someone to edit/remove information about themselves.

A place where violation of privacy is the status quo. A place that appears to value a mentality of "follow our rules" rather than doing what is right and ethical.

Just part of the reason I am not a big fan of Wikipedia.

Thankfully I have a international forum about which to write about this experience.

Well, I'm not sure I understand. Of course, what you write on a blog is your volition, I won't deny that. But Wikipedia's still a pretty cool place. Of course, I've never been faced with an article about myself alleging personal details (accurate or otherwise). Though, admittedly, mine wouldn't be all that interesting. Anyway...the Encyclopedia Britanica wouldn't likely consult you about what should appear in your entry, but Wikipedia is very careful about only including sourced information about individuals, particularly living individuals. As you can see below, your call for help has been heeded by multiple editors here; While it may not result in removal of your entry, I think that I can safely say that only sourced information about you will appear. Remember, please, that when you wrote for help at the help desk, no less than three conscientious editors did something to help you and to make sure that everything that's said about you is accurate according to secondary sources. Cheers. Sorry that this had to be your welcome to Wikipedia, Into The Fray ^T/C 22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

KevinErskine 22:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Agree with you on the help. But it was only after I was reprimanded; ignored and finally blocked. If I were famous enough to be in the EB, then I'd likely have other problems. But having some psycho post stuff here is problematic for me.

I contend that I am not notable, but someone who is REALLY disturbed is apparently cyberstalking me, as even I don't have such a complete list of my own press. as was listed on this site.

[edit] Blocking

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Deleting this block template will not unblock you. If you want to contest the block, add {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page, which you are still permitted to edit. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Unblocked so you can participate in the discussion; please do not blank the article page. Request handled by: jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note to unblocking admin (or anyone else)

There's currently a discussion re the page in question at WP:BLPN#Kevin_Erskine. It may be appropriate to unblock this user so he can participate in it, on the understanding that he stops blanking the page until the dispute's resolved. — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

KevinErskine 22:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)I Still can't edit the discussion page...

Try now - you're definitely unblocked. If it still won't let you, post replies here and I (or someone) will move them across — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

KevinErskine 22:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Thanks Iridescent. Still can't edit that discussion page. I wanted to post the email I sent to you:

Thank You.

I contend that I am not notable at all. I also contend that it is quite frightening that someone knows that much about me, and can freely post it.

All I do is consult for liquor companies. There is NO reason for me to be included here.

Re: My marital status, education and birthdate, why on earth would that need to be included even if I were notable.

My additional fear is that Someone might think I posted this myself as it looks incredible self-serving.

I previously had someone pose as me (ScotchBlog) and post to the whisky related pages and had to aske that person to change their posting name, I was getting accused of promoting my book and web site.KevinErskine 22:58, 11 October 2007

Moved to the discussion page - have left here as well for info — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Careful

Your apparent systematic removal of all information, including that which is sourced, from the page is in danger of putting you in violation of WP:3RR. If there's something you want to challenge in it as it exists, may I suggest that you discuss it at the link that Iridescent provided? Incidentally, I've proposed the article for deletion. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

KevinErskine 23:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)As I stated, Since you won't let me remove the article (thanks for the deletion) I removed the education section (irrelevant to this ) My birthdate, unsourced, and changed my "Occupation" which listed things that are not occupations. Do corrections need to be voted on by a committee? After all, who knows me better than me?

I don't disagree with your removals. Hence, I didn't revert them. Just telling you to be careful. Incidentally, I just got the email that you sent me. I prefer to communicate here, but I now have little doubt that you are, indeed, Kevin Erskine.  :) The proposed deletion tag will eventually be reviewed by an administrator who will make a decision whether to delete the article or not based on what I've said and the article. If that does not succeed in deletion, I'll probably go the next step and nominate it for deletion, which is a community-wide discussion about the appropriateness of the article. Cheers, Into The Fray ^T/C 23:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Moot point! It's been deleted.  :) See? Not all that bad a place, is it? Cheers, Into The Fray ^T/C 23:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)