User talk:Paulthelawyer
|
Your contributed article, "Lucie Fink"
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, "Lucie Fink". 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 – Lucie Fink. 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 Lucie Fink. 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. Schazjmd (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please be far more careful with what references you use, or avoid WP:BLP information where high-quality references are required. [1] --Hipal (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
January 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Lucie Fink. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. 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. Largoplazo (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Maintenance tags
Please do not remove maintenance tags from an article without addressing the issue indicated by the tag. Schazjmd (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Montreal. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Lucie Fink
Hi, thank you for your edits on the article Lucie Fink. It appears that you cite a youtube video as a source. Usually we don't use primary sources here. Please use reliable secondary sources in Wikipedia. For more information WP:PRIMARY WP:RELIABLE. Best regards --V. E. (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Mordechai Shapiro date of birth
Hi,
What is the source of the date of birth you wrote for Mordechai Shapiro? DGtal (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Conflict of interest policy
Hello, Paulthelawyer. 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, clients, 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 Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
- 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. --Hipal (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
The article Lucie Fink has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No independent, reliable sources demonstrating any notability after three years
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hipal (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Lucie Fink moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Lucie Fink, is not suitable as written to remain published. Aside from doubtful notability, it appears there is a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. As per WP policy, please do not move into mainspace yourself. Onel5969 TT me 11:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Courtesy notice - sanctions apply to biographical information
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. --Hipal (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Lucie Fink (January 21)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lucie Fink and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Paulthelawyer!
Having an article draft 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! MurielMary (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
|
January 2023
Your recent editing history at Olivia Dunne shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Michael60634 (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
There is no "personal" information, only "public" information that is being published. This residence is visible from a public road. As a public figure, she does not have the same expectation of privacy as well. Looks like we are not in agreement over what would be public or private, but the information is accurate and there is no reason to remove accurate information. Paulthelawyer (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- The reason is that there is a clear consensus in favour of not including the image. --bonadea contributions talk 11:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Michael60634 (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:3RR policy violation on Olivia Dunne
Your recent editing history at Olivia Dunne shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2600:1700:9AD0:4AB0:6739:976E:330A:5E71 (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
January 2023
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Salvio giuliano 12:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)- Specifically, I find that your conduct highlighted here repeatedly and seriously violates WP:BLPPRIVACY. Salvio giuliano 12:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Paulthelawyer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I completely understand if some people are concerned that a few of my edits may have been considered "personal" information. Just for the record, all residences photographed were photographed on public roads in areas visible to the general public. No private areas of homes were ever posted on Wikipedia. In the future, if some other users have concerns about specific content on a particular Wikipedia page, I would be open to having an open dialogue with them on the talk page for each respective article. An alternative option would be to seek dispute resolution through the administrators if there was a disagreement. Please consider my prior contributions and afford me another chance to contribute towards by public knowledge by editing Wikipedia. For this reason, I am requesting to be unblocked and for the administrators to restore my ability to edit articles, subject to editorial review. Thank you.
Decline reason:
This entirely fails to address the reason for the block, and gives me no confidence that you would not repeat the behaviour that led to the block if you were to be unblocked. Girth Summit (blether) 17:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
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.
Paulthelawyer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am making a revised request to be unblocked. In response to the previous administrator's contention that I failed to address the reason for the original block, let me take the opportunity to respond. It is my understanding that my editing privileges were blocked because I engaged in edit warring with respect to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Going forward, I promise to refrain from edit warring. If there are any points of contention, especially with regards to Biographies of living persons, I will work to resolve them in the talk page of each article, or seek dispute resolution. Administrators can make the final determination whether or not something should be published in biographies of living persons. In regards to the other concern that there was no confidence that the behavior in question would not be repeated again, let me note that there is nothing preventing administrators from reimposing another future block I were to make objectionable edits or engage in edit warring. Please afford me the chance to edit articles once again, so I can actually have an opportunity to prove that I will not repeat the behavior in question. Thank you.
Decline reason:
The edit warring was the minor issue. The major issue is violations of WP:BLPPRIVACY, and you don't seem to understand this at all. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
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.
Paulthelawyer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Just to clarify, the specific reason for my block was for going against Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy and engaging in edit warring. In regards to "privacy," it seems as if you were looking for a specific omission to justify not lifting the block. The interpretation of privacy is inherently subjective, and there are no easy answers about the extent to which public figures are afforded an expectation of privacy. The article on living persons specifically mentions that users should refrain from publishing addresses as a matter of "privacy," and I had never published the addresses of any of the living persons for the article in question. Going forward, I can refrain from publishing other images that may be objectionable, and any issues surrounding the expectation of privacy can be addressed in the talk page. Please afford me a chance to edit once again so I can prove that I will not infringe upon "privacy" as defined in the Wikipedia's biographies of living persons. Thank you.
Decline 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.
Paulthelawyer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have learned my lesson after being blocked for going against Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy and I sincerely apologize for any misunderstandings I may have caused. I promise that going forward, I will consult the appropriate editorial policies before publishing information that may raise privacy concerns. I will also resolve issues on the talk page through appropriate processes, and refrain from edit warring. This account has never been blocked before, and I will ensure that I am compliant with Wikipedia's policies so that I would not be blocked again in the future. Please afford me another chance to edit pages on Wikipedia so I can prove my worth as a valued contributor on your site. Thank you.
Decline reason:
While you have actually remained reasonably civil, that alone is not enough to persuade me to lift the block.
I read your request against what you have said in the other three, and very importantly against what you did to provoke the block. Perhaps you do understand what you did wrong (a very serious "what you did wrong") and are genuinely not going to do it again. Or perhaps you have just more carefully chosen your words, in the hope that someone will draw that conclusion. Maybe you are sincere, but not sure you can help yourself when you can edit again.
With that much uncertainty, I can think of only one clear way to best protect the encyclopedia: decline your request and leave you blocked. That way I know there will be no recurrence.
Now, you'll recall that I noted above that this was your fourth request in the nine days or so since you got blocked indefinitely. That is one more request than most people get in such a short period before we revoke talk page access. Based on what 331dot said above, I think you got lucky here in getting this request. I don't think it was in your interest. Because I, too, concur that it seems you're not getting this, and so I will be revoking access to this page after I save this. As the notice will tell you, you can still use email to make a private request. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
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.
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Daniel Case (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Lucie Fink
Hello, Paulthelawyer. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lucie Fink, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)