User talk:Dab2

Veda Shook[edit]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Veda Shook. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Patricia friend.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Patricia friend.png, which you've sourced to AFA-CWA. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Veda Shook for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Veda Shook 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/Veda Shook 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 template from the top of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Association of Flight Attendants may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

* [[Envoy Air]] formerly American Eagle Airlines|American Eagle]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:11, 2 June 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).

Dab2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked last year by some admin named Ponyo. He claimed at the time, in the midst of attacking every word I tried to post about Sara Nelson (union leader), that I was using a sock puppet. I haven't the slightest idea what that means, but I suspect it was something HE did so he could blame it on me. I have since read in the traditional media about admins like him: mysognistic little dictators who impose their whims on unsuspecting contributors and often have an axe to grind about some personal issue. Here, it appears the admin who blocked me was simply anti-union and anti-feminist. But whatever his agenda, he was simply determined to keep the page about the International President of the Association of Flight Attendants from being created. He tried to claim she wasn't notable despite leading the largest flight attendant union in the world, with over 50,000 members at 20 airlines on four continents. He complained that news coverage from the New York Times, CNN and practically every major news outlet were insufficient references to support the creation of the Sara Nelson entry. Finally, he blocked me in the midst of creating the page, and as I was trying to add additional references and information to address the concerns he raised. I only occasionally contribute to Wiki but in looking into resolving this block I learned that his actions, like aggressively nominating the page for deletion almost as soon as the first information went up, his aggressive editing and refusal to recognize legitimate citations, and his insistence that Ms Nelson is not "notable" despite published reports that she heads a major national organization, all violateWiki policy. He tried to delete the Sara Nelson union leader entry despite the fact that the previous president of the same organization Veda Shook had a page that survived nomination for deletion despite having far fewer references and citations to support it. I understand he has since been banned himself or lost his admin privileges, or whatever you call it. But, despite that, my block has never been lifted. There is much additional information, and extensive additional citations that could be added to the Sara Nelson (union leader) page, but I cannot do so because of the block. Please consider this my request to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

You were indeed blocked by an administrator named Ponyo. S/he does not appear to have attacked you, or even interacted with you before the block; you seem to be very confused. In fact, none of what you write above seems to be correct. You also will need to address the technical and behavioral evidence that you operated multiple accounts to disrupt an AFD. I'm afraid that the "no" below is not persuasive. Please note that using this template to continue personal attacks will lead to this page being locked. Kuru (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2015 (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.

Did you also operate accounts with these names: Unionyes420 and Twaz? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No david (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: - the technical evidence of abuse of multiple accounts was clear, even without the obvious behavioural match.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well then. David, it appears that when you say "...and I answered truthfully No. I have no information about those accounts...", you are lying and do not deserve to be unblocked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock request | User:Anna Frodesiak asked if I operate account names Unionyes420 and Twaz, and I answered truthfully No. I have no information about those accounts or I would have elaborated. As for the response by Kuru, it's demonstrably incorrect to say " none of what you write above seems to be correct." First, it is correct that [[Sara Nelson (union leader) is notable under Wiki guidelines as the head of a major organization, the Association of Flight Attendants. While Kuru may not be aware of all the back and forth with Ponyo, it is a fact that Ponyo pounced on the page within hours after the first entry, he/she found fault with every citation and blocked me before I could complete writing and referencing the entry. It is also true that such aggressive tactics violate Wiki guidelines. It also true that Ponyo violated Wiki guidelines by agressively nominating the entry for deletion before myself and other editors could fully develop the page. It is also true that despite Ponyo's insistence that the president of the Association of Flight Attendants did not meet the Wiki "notability" requirement, the previous president of the same Association of Flight Attendants Veda Shook still has an entry to this day, and her entry survived a nomination for deletion even though it is far less complete and has far fewer references than the entry for Sara Nelson (union leader). Ponyo blocked me on a basis that I never understood, apparently having to do with accounts I've never heard of. So, despite Kuru's unfounded claim, there is nothing in my request to be unblocked that is untrue, and Kuru offers no evidence to the contrary. I re-new my request to be unblocked. david (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC). CORRECTION. It was someone known as Reddogsix who aggressively edited the page and proposed it for deletion. Reddogsix is the person I referred to who has since been blocked himself or lost his admin privileges. Ponyo is the person who blocked me, claiming incorrectly that I am a sock puppet or used a sock puppet. At the time I thought that was some sort of Wiki slang insult. Still don't understand what it is}}. david (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]