User talk:Petesmith2013

Talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, Petesmith2013. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added Dismas. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. 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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Kenny[edit]

Hello Petesmith2013,

This is just a courtesy visit to apprise you that I took the liberty to reconstruct your article adding expansion, references, wikilinks and removing the deletion template. Hope fully, you'd like my little effort. Best regards, (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hi dude. yes. Huge thanks. Im all new to this so it was nice to see what you had done to the page. Your effort was fully appreciated. A quick question though if thats cool .is it possible to remove the last reference link as it involves a blog that states untrue facts by a member of the british medical association who has tried to mislead people about Emma Kenny's credentials (which are all evident on this page)many many thanks for taking time out to do this. makes it look great ;-)

regards

P

Hi mate. Scratch that. its been sorted now. You are a superstar and fully appreciated. You obviosly are a nice guy ;-)

P

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot[edit]

Hi Petesmith2013! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. 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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Kenny (2)[edit]

Hi, you need to read and understand WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:RS before you go any further. These are Wikipedia rules which editors must follow. -- Alarics (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning[edit]

Your recent editing history at Emma Kenny shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Emma Kenny. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. 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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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. Flat Out let's discuss it 06:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Emma Kenny for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emma Kenny 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/Emma Kenny 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lesson[edit]

The lesson is that creating articles to promote people you are close to, can end in tears because anyone can edit here as long as they use reliable sources. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I really do appreciate you corresponding with me on this matter. I honestly didnt realise that elements could be added that could be damaging. I have certainly learnt a BIG lesson from this and you guys have been very open and honest about how to go about articles etc which i have found very helpful for the future. I have tried to find decent sources but i seem to be hitting brick walls with what you guys need. Is there any chance I can get this page deleted or get my sources included. You are very right in learning a lesson on this. thanks again

regards Petesmith2013 (talk)pete

you can vote to delete the article because the subject isn't notable here Flat Out let's discuss it 09:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ,

i now have the required document from the Alumni of manchester university hat shows her masters degree.

https://edocs.manchester.ac.uk/verifier/servlet/DocumentVerifierApp/template/VerifyDAT.vm?datid=857h64o7i1

I was advised that this is what is needed.

regards

Petesmith2013 (talk)

I can't load that page, but in any case her masters in counselling is not disputed in the article.Flat Out let's discuss it 09:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure why this isn't what is needed. It states that she doesn't have the relevant qualifications to call herself a psychologist. The link opens for me and it is available for all to see online. Also the article by Margaret McCartney does not dispute that Emma can be called a Psychologist, even acknowledges that she has a Bsc Hons in psychology. The fact is that in the UK Emma is employed as a Psychologist for brands and TV, there is plenty of evidence from many independent sources as you have seen. The reason that this info needs to be shown as regarding her qualifications is due to the fact that it states on her page that she is not entitled to use the term Psychologist. Emma is legally and work wise entitled to use this in her work In the UK this is allowed. The fact I am also sharing with you her Masters in Counselling is to demonstrate that she is very qualified. can i please now edit the page with this info and put this source up. Emma is not self-declred, she is employed by many production companies, brands and individuals as a psychologist.

Petesmith2013 (talk)pete

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Petesmith2013, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Flat Out let's discuss it 12:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh ? I am sat at my computer trying sort this out with you ?? I have no idea what this means. Feel free to investigate as Im even more confused with this now ??? I have been here for hours trying to get a fair article up. Why am i being ridiculed this way ?? Petesmith2013 (talk)p

Hello, Petesmith2013. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Emma Kenny, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ,

This is what i have done. This article was also checked by an administrator yesterday and they pointed out they couldn't see any thing wrong. I have left your info on there but i also added the correct and neutral info on there too. All of it had reliable sources too. All i am doing is leaving your stuff on there but also adding her legal elements on there too. Im am not sure why you are trying to discredit this ladies name by removing any info that is sourced well and is legal in the UK. Bad publicity comes with any media territory which is fine but being able to legally work as a psychologist is allowed and this is all i had proven. I also didn't know who bobbins was. Thanks for checking though. I appreciate you guys are busy and don't need multiple accounts happening all the time.

Petesmith2013 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 19 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Signing posts[edit]

Every time you post on a talk page, you need to sign the posts by using the four tildes ~~~~. Your failure to sign your posts interrupts other editors who receive an edit conflict when sinebot intervenes and autosigns your posts. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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:Petesmith2013 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: ). Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you indefinitely, because you appear to be on this site exclusively to promote Emma Kenny. To appeal this block, place the text {{unblock|your reason}} below this message. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:19, 19 January 2014 (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).

Petesmith2013 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi Im not sure why you think I am on here to promote Emma kenny. I set up the article thinking that it as just a port of call for any inof wether it be positive or negative about the subject. i wasn't aware it could cause so many problems. All i have put up is reasonable evidence but i guess i haven't realised i haven't done it properly to which i apologise for. can I please ask for the article to be deleted due to emma kenny not being notable and ill never get involved with the site again as im not sure how it works.Sorry if caused any offence

Decline reason:

Well, if you sincerely are not sure why it looked as though you were trying to promote her, then you are so out of touch with the nature of your own editing that you will probably never be able to edit in the neutral, balanced way that is required for Wikipedia, so you had better stay blocked. Not only does your editing of the article look promotional, but your talk page posts too make it perfectly clear that your purpose was to produce a wholly complimentary picture of her, that anyone who posted anything not to her advantage was a doing something which you would not tolerate, you made it clear that you thought you owned the article, and could exclude other people from editing or changing your work, you attacked other editors who made edits you didn't like, accusing them of vandalism, lying, and slander. In short, you made it abundantly clear not only that you were here for the sole purpose of promoting Emma Kenny, but that you would do whatever you could to keep it that way, and that you had no intention of working collaboratively. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2014 (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.

pedros 16:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

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).

Petesmith2013 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I also have this on my complaint i put inthat another admin had put so im not sure why i am now blocked . And why you reverted all the info back to a negative beginning quote . " I'm looking at the article and the AfD, which I might close shortly for reasons of SNOW. But Flat Out, this is not how to write a BLP--come on. (Jéské Couriano, that goes for this one too: nothing but negative in the opening sentence, that's not OK.) Bobbins123 is so obviously a sock (or a piece of meat) that I don't think we have to wait for the SPI: I'll block them in a minute. I agree that Petesmith is not likely to come back after this article is deleted, so I won't block: their crime, if crime it is, is edit warring on one particular article and promoting that article's subject. If that article does not exist anymore, they might perhaps move on and start writing about flowers and butterflies; I do not wish to deprive Wikipedia of that potential. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC) I just want this article taking down

Decline reason:

Since this unblock request already existed when I dealt with the one above, I regard them as part of the same request, and my decline covers them both. I don't fully understand what you are saying, but it seems that you are saying that another administrator had previously decided not to block you. If so, that is not a reason to unblock: an unblock request has to be assessed on the basis of why you were blocked, and whether it seems you will not continue in the same way. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2014 (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.

Thanks for getting back to me. Im really sorry for not knowing the way things are done on wikipedia. this whole episode has been a huge lesson for me. Its not so much about me being blocked. All i wanted to do was have info up about Emma Kenny. It was they way that the intro was totally negative and bias towards her that was the issue. I wasnt wanting remove the articles etc. just add sourced ones to them. Which have been removed. The beginning of the article is very negative which as the other admin says is not how its done on wikipedia. This is causing severe distress to someone that doesn't deserve this.once again i apologise for not knowing how to write on wikipedia with the script etc

pedros 17:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

pedros 17:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you say who the other adminstrator is, or where he or she made that comment? He or she may have a good point, and if I could see the comment in its context it might help. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson , They are referring to this response at ANI which they have pasted into their unblock request above. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.sorry for late reply.it was night time here in the uk. I was just referring to this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI Scroll down to the help with editor section.I am now also being accused of more sock puppetry or pieces of meat. I have no idea who is now editing the article as all i am trying to do is get it deleted for not being notable. it is now back to it being an initial negative and bias lead in. I have seen the history of the article and I or Emma kenny have nothing to do with any editing of the article anymore.Not sure why some editors are determined to keep the negative lead in the article and then ask to protect it. this must break some ethical rules?I only wanted to put some information on your site which was unbiased and never set out to promote Emma Kenny in any way.when i first put this article up some other person whom i dont know went on and tidied it up with info etc. Then all of this happened.Not sure why i have offended and why things are so negative and not neutral.many thanks for getting back to me.Sorry again for my lack of experience in wikipedia work.I cant seem to figure out the signature thing either so sorry for that too.

pedros 07:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have been trying to customize your signature and got it wrong, try going to Special:Preferences and the section "Signature", deleting anything that you typed in the "Signature" box, and unchecking the box labelled "Treat the above as wiki markup". This should set your signature back to the default. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David.Think i might have it.

Petesmith2013 (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor Jéské Courianohas also reverted the lead into something that is nothing but negative in the opening sentence. this is not neutral at all and they were also asked not to do this in that same complaint thread. Jéské Couriano has now asked for the page to be protected as it stands even though its up for deletion.i have not become a sock puppet or got a piece of meat to do anything for me. Seriously havent got a clue who these people are. all i can say is that this is turning into something that was not intended and is consuming and negative.just want to get this article deleted to stop all this correspondence and back and forth messaging.Many thanks for putting up with my ongoing rants

Petesmith2013 (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys.I just want to note i am noticing things happening on this article. I just want to stress this isn't me or anyone to do with me (meat) doing this. i am just wanting to get the article that i put up deleted.Sorry if its causing any stress.

Petesmith2013 (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to make a comment about your concerns about the article. At certain points, when an edit/revert war or vandalism is ongoing, administrators will semiprotect an article to prevent IP editors, who are often the source of the vandalism, from editing the article. Also, the edits are reverted back to some state prior to the vandalism/edit war. In some cases, this can result in the WP:WRONGVERSION being presented. This can mean that negative material is left visible on the article. Confirmed editors will be able to edit through the semiprotection to improve the article. The Emma Kenny article is such an example of the wrong version being reverted to. However, as there is an AFD open on it, where the number of !votes to delete it will result in a WP:SNOW closure, there is little point in editing the article. The AFD will close in several days so unless some reliable sourcing is found so that the article will be made meaningful it is pretty much guaranteed the existing version will be left there until the article is deleted. Blackmane (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of sockpuppetry, in my opinion there is enough evidence to raise questions, but not enough for a block, though evidently some people disagree with the second half of that statement. I am not sure what to think of a comment which includes the statement "Bobbins123 is so obviously a sock (or a piece of meat) that I don't think we have to wait for the SPI: I'll block them in a minute", when the person making that statement has still not blocked after nearly 30 hours. If you are interested in editing on other subjects, I suggest that you make another unblock request, briefly outlining some of the editing you hope to do. If it seems that you are not likely to make again the same mistakes you have made so far, an unblock may well be a reasonable proposition. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]