User talk:Flegrain

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Flegrain, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been reverted for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of deletion, you might like to draft your article before submission, then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Gurt Posh (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of National Atheist Party for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article National Atheist Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Atheist Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gurt Posh (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page National Atheist Party has been reverted.
Your edit here to National Atheist Party was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/National.Atheist.Party/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of National atheist party[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.

A tag has been placed on National atheist party, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, 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 that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Gurt Posh (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to promote your noble cause. Subjects here have articles because they already are notable enough to be written about in an encyclopedia, not because maybe if you wish real hard and try your best, they might be notable someday. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 21 September 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

My account was blocked for non-disruptive reason because you think that I am promoting and organization. I need to know what is the level at which credibility is established ? The party has secured 527 status and the registration process is long and tenuous but members or people who seek information need to have access to the party's information. I also questioned the partiality of the editor Bella the ball because she used religious expression to ban an atheist organization and I suggested that there might be a religious bias but you seem to have taken it as an insult rather than a criticism which appears justified on my side without addressing the concern. If credibility is an issue, why keep the entry for the Christian Party (UK) since they have no representative ? Why keep the entry for the 1930's Christina party since it never achieved anything ? Again, religious bias can be invoked since you are not addressing these concern. The reason that Orange Mike entered was that I re-posted the entry to circumvent the deletion process but the second entry was a modification of the first entry with addition of many external sources. The entry was re-made because my request to not delete the first entry was not answered either.

Decline reason:

You're kind of all over the map with this request. Let's try to stick to the actual reasons for your block and leave all this other stuff out of it. Your request at WP:REFUND was declined because, as is indicated in large bold letters at the top of that page, that is not what that forum is for. You didn't file a request at WP:DRV as advised, instead you recreated the article that was deleted via AFD under a slightly different title. That, in my opinion, is a manifest act of bad faith as it is clear you did it in an attempt to avoid the attention it would have received at the old title. Any future requests should address these concerns instead of trying to blaming others or dragging in other unrelated articles. This block is about your behavior and nothing else. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize for the procedure but it was a first entry and I plead ignorance. Since the first page was deleted, the user page said that no article was found and that I could enter a new article. I was not aware that I could still file a request at WP:DRV and thought I had to re-enter. Since the party i here to stay, an entry is necessary and I need to know the exact guidelines for credibility. Thank you.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.

Subjects here have articles because they already are notable enough to be written about in an encyclopedia, not because they are "here to stay" and maybe if you wish real hard and try your best, they might be notable someday. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:19, 22 September 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Again, I apologize for the procedure I used but you need to give me a real answer and let me know what criteria you deem are necessary to be "notable". I may wish it really hard but the National Atheist party is already more notable that some unrelated articles. Rather than focusing on my apparently inexcusable ignorance of your policy, could you PLEASE address my concerns of partiality by previous editors (is it really blaming others when the wording is ambiguous at best) and my request for information ? Thank you.

Decline reason:

First, please note that you are improperly using the unblock requests - none of your postings are unblock requests. We have millions of articles, all of which have had to pass a notability test, so clearly those guidelines are not "ambiguous". WP:CORP holds some specific guidelines for organizations. This has zero to do with "respectability", but instead it's about "notability". Wikipedia is not a directory of companies or political parties. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:14, 28 October 2011 (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.

I already gave a reason above: "Since the first page was deleted, the user page said that no article was found and that I could enter a new article. I was not aware that I could still file a request at WP:DRV and thought I had to re-enter.". I was unaware of that the procedure was still available and thought I had to re-enter one. I want to do an honest contribution and need my account unblocked. Once the account is unlocked, I will asked that the deletion process be reversed and add more external source (included in the second entry) and a copy of the 527 status. I also need to know what additional criteria for "respectability" need to be included to not be a "maybe if you wish real hard and try your best". Can I get an answer please ? Decline reason is that I understand why I was blocked and I will not repeat the behavior that caused my blocking but will make useful contributions instead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flegrain (talk • contribs)

For future reference, to request an unblock, you should use {{unblock}}, not {{unblock reviewed}}, as the latter indicates that an administrator has already looked at your request. I've fixed these last two unblock templates. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not answering this one, since I just re-deleted the article (another user created it) as G4. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]