User talk:ChristaJwl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:BostickLaw)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christopher Hollins (September 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lapablo was:
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.
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.
Lapablo (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request[edit]

Hi BostickLaw. You seem to have mistakenly posted this at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse. That page is for discussing things (i.e. concerns, suggestions) related to the purpose of the Teahouse and its operation; it's not really the place to post request like yours. If you're look for someone to review the draft you're working on, you can try asking at the Teahouse itself. Just go to Wikipedia:Teahouse and click on "Ask a question". The Teahouse, however, is more for asking general questions about editing. Someone will probably take a look at the draft and give an opinion, but if you're looking for more specific feedback you might try asking for it at a relevant WikiProject like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One thing about Wikipedia that you might not understand is Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Lots of people seem to be under the impression that having a Wikipedia article written about them is sort of a sign of their status or a form of recognition of their achievements. In some ways, that is kind of the case, but the subjects of articles have no real editorial control or ownership over article content and there can be a downside that's not apparent until it's too late. Wikipedia article's are only intended to reflect what reliable sources are saying about something in a neutral manner; article content (even negative) is going to be assessed in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not based upon what the subject may or may not want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Username[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "BostickLaw", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, service, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BostickLaw. I've added the above template because I think it might apply to your particular situation, not because you've done something horribly wrong and are in danger of being blocked. If it does apply to you, then I suggest you follow the guidance given in it; if it doesn't, then you can ignore it. Concerns about your choice of username, however, are likely going to be raised the more you decide to edit; so, just be advised that someone else may bring it up again some time down the road. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marchjuly. Thank you for the message, I was not aware of the policy; however, the name does not represent a company or collection of individuals, but a single person - me. If it becomes an ongoing issue I'll look into changing my name. I am sort of learning this as I go, but I am a writer at heart and a researcher to boot so I'm excited about participating and am looking for additional articles to review.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BostickLaw (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 October 2020 (utC+9 (UTC)
Your username seemed problematic because it seemed like the name of a law office/firm, which wouldn't be allowed per WP:PROMONAME. If it isn't and it's just an indication of your interests, then that's fine. Just be advised that others might question it again at some point; if that happens, just explain things to them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confict of interest editing[edit]

Information icon Hello, BostickLaw. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again BostickLaw. Similar to what I posted above in #Username, I've added the above template just for reference purposes in case it applies to you. I've done this not because you've done something wrong per se, but your previous attempts to create Draft:Christina Bostick at least give the impression that there might be an WP:APPARENTCOI between your account and the content you're trying to create. If not, then there's nothing to worry about; you can look at pages linked to in the template simply for reference purposes. If, on the other hand, there is some connection, then it will be much easier for other to help you the more transparent you are about it. COI editing isn't expressly prohibited, but it can be tricky to do according to relevant policies and guidelines, and can quickly lead to problems with other editors when it's not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Marchcjuly. And, again, your message is appreciated. My attempt to create a page for myself was several years ago and at that time I learned that submitting an article requires some distance. Since I always wanted to do one, I took my shot when the requisite distance was present and am using this opportunity to try to learn the system. The subject of my article is not a client or otherwise affiliated, nor have I been hired to draft the article, nor am I receiving compensation. If you have any advice about how I can improve upon the article, I would love to hear it, but - at this point - it seems like there are so many assumptions being made about my relationship to the subject that no one is actually reviewing the notoriety of the individual or concerned about the importance of the topics included in the article, particularly given the social and political landscape which I find to be very disappointing.BostickLaw (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors are going to (or should) take you at your word if you say there's no COI regarding the articles you choose to edit as long as your edits are in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In other words, if your edits show you being more WP:HERE than WP:NOTHERE, you should be OK.
As for improving Christopher Hollins, David Tornheim seems genuinely interested in doing the same as shown below at #Re: Christopher Hollins -- Please slow down and by his posts at Talk:Christopher Hollins and Draft talk:Christopher Hollins. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project and new editors are expected to make mistakes; so, perhaps you and David can combine your efforts to improve the article in a manner that is in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You can be WP:BOLD in trying to improve the article, but sometimes it's better to be WP:CAUTIOUS. Just remember that if you're bold and subsequently WP:REVERTed, then the thing to do (except in some certain cases) would be to WP:DISCUSS things on the article talk page per WP:BRD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: Thanks for your comments. I agree. @BostickLaw: Sorry, that I had not seen the above that you said you do not have any COI before I posted below. I will strike out my question about whether you have a COI, now that this has been pointed out to that the question was asked and answered already. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christopher Hollins (October 9)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Christopher Hollins instead.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion. If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.
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.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, BostickLaw! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Christopher Hollins -- Please slow down[edit]

I notice you keep adding material that is not properly sourced. I think you are putting in material that is based on personal knowledge. I suggest you put your intentions on the talk page. Do you have a WP:COI? If so, you'll need to disclose that.

I have been removing unsourced material that you keep trying to add.[1][2][3] It was material like that that had slowed the publication down at WP:AfC. I suggestion you spend more time reading up on the rules at Wikipedia, particularly, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:VERIFY --David Tornheim (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I struck questions about COI per this discussion above: #Confict_of_interest_editing --David Tornheim (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

First, I want to say thank you for creating the article. I would like it to be clear that you created it, and I regret I did not put that in the first edit. We can put a comment on the talk page that says that.

Regarding Talk:Christopher_Hollins#Exceptions, I am not questioning your integrity. I have not seen you misrepresent anything and I don't believe I said you have. I certainly did not intend to. I struck out my concerns about COI, as you answered the question. As someone who works in law, I know the vast majority of attorneys can be trusted, and I have given you the benefit of the doubt the entire time, and that opinion has not changed. I'm sorry you felt I had questioned it.

What I am saying is that you are new to Wikipedia, and the rules here are abstruse. I think it is safe to say that virtually *all* new editors get confused by the rules, and regularly break them. There's nothing wrong with making a bunch of mistakes early on, but it is important to address concerns that experienced editors tell you you have broken. That's why we have WP:BITE.

In particular, we don't follow the rules of legal research that you and I both know. The rules are often counter-intuitive: You might find CNN being used for an article, where direct research into the pleadings and rulings may clearly show that CNN is wrong. In a legal brief, we give the prior history of the litigation. But here, that may not be possible if the article is not about the litigation itself. It's easy to do what Wikipedia would identify as original research. I did it when I first joined years ago. It takes a while to get used to the emphasis on secondary sources.

So, no, please don't think I am at all questioning your integrity. I'm not.

Also, please know that if I had not jumped in, it's likely the article you drafted would not have been published until *after* the election was over. As you my notice from this comment, I pointed out that WP:AfC is more like a graveyard where articles flounder and never see the light of day. You notice that no one questioned that assessment? They probably don't want to admit that it is true. I'm doing everything I can to help you get what's publishable put into the article.

I'm sorry it is frustrating for you, but this almost always the case with new editors. It may not seem like I'm trying to help you, but I really am.

You might find the section I wrote on advice to new editors at the top of my user page of some help.

Please feel free to ask more questions. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive peer review volunteer[edit]

Hi ChristaJwl, you're receiving this message because you were previously listed at the list of volunteers for Wikipedia's peer review process, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 1 year.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the volunteers list, so that the list is kept up to date and editors who do need help can better find active editors. If you become active again and would like to add yourself to the volunteers list again, you can do so at any time by visiting the volunteers list.

Thank you for volunteering to be on the list previously, and all the best on your WikiVoyages! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Chris Hollins[edit]

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, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Chris Hollins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This title of this page was usurped and it should not be deleted. ChristaJwl (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: first, you cannot move a page by copy/pasting it, that is against the rules. Second, if you think that the content at Christopher G. Hollins should be at Chris Hollins because he is the primary subject and not Chris J. Hollins, then you need to start an RM on the article's talk page to get a consensus, since the dab already exists. Primefac (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider this your final warning - if you want one of these pages to be the primary page, you will need to start a move request on the article's talk page. Continuing to revert multiple editors who feel that there is no primary topic constitutes edit warring and will lead to sanctions. Additionally, you are attempting to overwrite a page via copy/paste pagemove, which is also not allowed, and thus requires an RM to enact. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the rules and it is permissible to usurp a page. It is you all who have started an editing war and I will see it resolved. ChristaJwl (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A move request was also included by the way. ChristaJwl (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins[edit]

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, Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins. 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 – Christopher G. Hollins. 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 Christopher G. Hollins. 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. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Christopher G. Hollins. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 21:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have already lost their editing privileges for Chris Hollins, Christopher G. Hollins, and Chris J. Hollins. Primefac (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I have reported you because nothing I did was disruptive or otherwise in bad faith, but I’ve reviewed type of comments that you leave and the actions you under take and I have raised your bad faith actions because with the other administrators. Writing “they have already lost their editing privileges” is simply an attempt to demean me as a fellow editor and the administrative powers you hold are not intended for that purpose ChristaJwl (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your comments[edit]

Information icon When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), 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. ––FormalDude talk 03:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins[edit]

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, Chris (Christopher G.) Hollins. 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 – Christopher G. Hollins. 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 Christopher G. Hollins. 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. MrOllie (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources have been neutral and I have opened a discussion on the talk page at Chris Hollins (politician) so that future edits to the page can be discussed prior to changing them such that we can avoid an edit war.ChristaJwl (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChristaJwl. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon It has been found that you have been using one or more accounts abusively or have edited logged out to avoid scrutiny. Please review the policy on acceptable alternate accounts. In short, alternate accounts should not be used for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position. It is not acceptable to use two accounts on the same article, or the same topic area, unless they are publicly and plainly disclosed on both your and the other account's userpage.

Your other account(s) have been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. If you repeat this behaviour you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

You need to stop edit warring at Chris Hollins (politician). This behavior can lead to sanctions and bans. If you want to address your concerns about the article content, go to Talk:Chris Hollins (politician) Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, I think it is you who is causing an edit war. I opened up a discussion on the page to discuss future edits prior to uploading them so that we can avoid any potential ongoing issues between us as editors. Please delete your comment regarding edit warring as I have taken the appropriate steps to avoid conflict regarding the page and you have simply been undoing my revisions without any significant basis for doing so or any more credible sources than the one's I have uploaded. You also are undoing new work which had nothing to do with your objections.ChristaJwl (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ChristaJwl reported by User:MrOllie (Result: ). Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Chris Hollins (politician) for persistent edit warring.
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 ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChristaJwl&oldid=1084069473"