Message about what?
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
VoterMarch has been reverted.
Your edit
here to
VoterMarch 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 (
http://www.youtube.com/user/VoterMarch) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
media file (e.g. a
sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy, as well as other parts of our
external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
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)
10:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello What88,
It seems to me that an article you worked on, Louis Joseph Posner, may be copied from http://maps.thefullwiki.org/Louis_J._Posner. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.
It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.
Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot ( talk) 16:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The article Louis Joseph Posner has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- ikseevon (T) (E) 16:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
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 Louis Joseph Posner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Revolution1221 ( talk) 16:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
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) 12:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC) OK, thank you for reminder.what'sup 12:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello What88, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
This article was listed by another editor for speedy deletion as being exclusively promotional. As reviewing administrator, I agreed it was highly promotional, but I thought it would be possible to remove the promotional material, and I did so instead of deleting it. Do not restore it. Do not duplicate content with the article on his organization. Do not include lists of other more famous ppeople who attended events he appeared at or that he sponsored. Do not include material about the events on speaking tours he helped promote--I removed that entire section, as it seemed the purpose was advocacy of his ideas. That sort of advocacy is regarded here as promotionalism also.
this is an encyclopedia, not an instrument for social change, except to the extend that a reasonably reliable neutral point of view free encyclopedia can serve as one. For it to do so, requires maintaining this NPOV. That many of us might agree very strongly with what he has promoted is not relevant.
The promotionalism was so rampant, that I consider it necessary to give a formal warning, which follows. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC) In particular, his
Noted what'sup 04:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While
objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be
a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.
DGG (
talk )
17:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Noted what'sup 04:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at
Louis Joseph Posner, you may be
blocked from editing. Thank you.
ukexpat (
talk)
14:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited VoterMarch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2000 presidential election ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Louis Joseph Posner 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. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 19:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
This is not an edit War. The reasons for editing have been given, and are based on sound reasons.what'sup 21:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Further, the additional items set forth in the Article under Career were made in accordance with the request that there be more secondary citations. what'sup 21:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
You need to slow down a bit. The subject is already on the fringes of notability. Adding material about his unspecified role in "important cases" and adding photos does not help the case but in fact by being such obvious makeweights, makes it worse. JohnInDC ( talk) 20:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
There is additional material to add, but will hold off for now.what'sup 20:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)what'sup 20:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Noted; what'sup 20:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The Article cited concerning the seized funds was largely the position of the NYPD during litigation. The Brief was filed in the Appellate Division of New York State and the 5 Judges of the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the position of Posner in their published Decision. what88 17:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Louis Joseph Posner was counsel for defendant Leonard Schaen in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) insider trading case involving Motel 6 in the U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., [1] and related class action suit.. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]
Posner also represented the plaintiff in Ox v. Union Central Life, a U.S. District Court case involving wrongful rescission of a disability insurance policy, which was reported in Westlaw, Lexis, Mealey's Litigation Reporter and the American Disabilities Reporter. [28] [29] User:What88 11:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
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 What88, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Dark Sun ( talk) 21:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on
John Vincent Saykanic requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a
repost of material that was previously deleted following a
deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this:
which appears inside of the speedy deletion (
{{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). 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 page's discussion 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. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use
deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you.
JohnInDC (
talk)
03:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Edward Forchion, “The New Jersey Weedman”, a marijuana and First Amendment activist criminal defendant on appeal in the “Glen Ridge High School” rape case, which received national attention and spawned a book Our Guys by Bernard Lefkowitz Organized Crime, including Joseph “Scoops” Licata, Philadelphia-Atlantic City Mob Boss Nicodemo “Little Nicky” Scarfo, and New Jersey Mob Capo Robert “Cabert” Bisaccia, and New Jersey Crime Boss Martin Taccetta. The Article is supported by 10 independent references to reliable secondary sources. A previous version was deleted in July 2010 because: "no significant coverage of the person by independent reliable sources" and "A lawyer doing what a lawyer does is not particularly notable. Given the edit history, this page hints of self-promotion." John Saykanic, Esq. is also mentioned in the Wiki article about his client Ed Forchion, at /info/en/?search=Edward_Forchion What's Up (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC) This version has been on Wikipedia since March 2013 without any objections. The current version has significant coverage by independent reliable sources, there is no hint of self-promotion, and the lawyer is, in fact, notable.
Hello What88. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of VoterMarch, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "Not notable" isn't a valid reason for speedy deletion. I recommend you take this to WP:AFD if you still want this to be deleted, but beware that it may well be kept. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Your decline is noted. However, there still exists the following:
![]() | The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's
notability guidelines for companies and organizations. (December 2013) |
![]() | This user page may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Excessive reliance on self-published or non-reliable sources; excessive quotes from news articles; detail out of proportion to actual third party coverage. Please help improve this user page if you can. |
However, the Wiki demand for notability and cleanup is not likely to occur for this Article. Most of the activity occurred in 2000 and 2001. A lot of the newspaper articles are no longer on the Internet. At that time there was a "media blackout" of activist events. Much of what happened was unreported, and is only listed in blogs and other sources which Wikipedia views as not reliable. If Wikipedia is only a collection of mainstream press articles, then Wikipedia is really just a summary of what somebody can just as readily get in a Google search. User:What88 21:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Once an article has been declined for speedy deletion, it is usually best to consider AfD or PROD. Tis article is eligible for neither WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G7. Considering its history and the number of refs, WP:AFD would be the venue in which to seek deletion. Dloh cierekim 14:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to refrain from tagging articles for deletion. There are many articles that need improvement. You might want to do more of that. Thanks Dloh cierekim 14:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
A link to a prior discussion would be required. I see no such discussion. I see a deletion for a page move. Dloh cierekim 15:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The article was originally published by User:Lawline who was banned. I am reviewing archives to see discussion. Thank you. User:What88 15:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts per the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawline. Mark Arsten ( talk) 21:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC).
User:What88 03:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article VoterMarch 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/VoterMarch 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. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 12:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
What88 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This User was blocked as a sock puppet of Lawline. However, Lawline should have never been blocked in the first place and Lawline which was blocked in 2011 should be unblocked. The real story about User:Lawline is that an Administrator was making edits to an article written by Lawline. The Administrator had no knowledge of the subject area but engaged in cyber bullying against Lawline to get her way. Lawline indicated that he disagreed with some of her edits. Lawline also advised the Administrator that some of her edits could be viewed as libelous under New York law. However, Lawline NEVER threatened to sue and always respected the rights of Wikipedia and the Administrator. The Administrator then turned things around and claimed that Lawline threatened to sue Wikipedia which was not the case. The Administrator did this as a ploy to block and ban Lawline so she could could get Lawline out of the way and edit the Article the way she wanted to. Following the banning of Lawline, every User that in any way was associated with or supportive of Lawline was blocked and banned as a "sock puppet" of Lawline. Included in the "sock puppet" list was User:LuckyDan89 who was a college student who had been a Wikipedia user for over 5 years, and who was banned for making one small edit on a Lawline article. This User has never abused any accounts, has never vandalized any articles, and intends to continue as a productive member of the Wikipedia Community.
Decline reason:
Identical request to other confirmed Lawline socks. Yunshui 雲 水 11:31, 13 January 2014 (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.
Message about what?
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
VoterMarch has been reverted.
Your edit
here to
VoterMarch 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 (
http://www.youtube.com/user/VoterMarch) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
media file (e.g. a
sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy, as well as other parts of our
external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
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)
10:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello What88,
It seems to me that an article you worked on, Louis Joseph Posner, may be copied from http://maps.thefullwiki.org/Louis_J._Posner. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.
It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.
Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot ( talk) 16:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The article Louis Joseph Posner has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{ prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. -- ikseevon (T) (E) 16:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
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 Louis Joseph Posner requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Revolution1221 ( talk) 16:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to
sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
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) 12:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC) OK, thank you for reminder.what'sup 12:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello What88, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
This article was listed by another editor for speedy deletion as being exclusively promotional. As reviewing administrator, I agreed it was highly promotional, but I thought it would be possible to remove the promotional material, and I did so instead of deleting it. Do not restore it. Do not duplicate content with the article on his organization. Do not include lists of other more famous ppeople who attended events he appeared at or that he sponsored. Do not include material about the events on speaking tours he helped promote--I removed that entire section, as it seemed the purpose was advocacy of his ideas. That sort of advocacy is regarded here as promotionalism also.
this is an encyclopedia, not an instrument for social change, except to the extend that a reasonably reliable neutral point of view free encyclopedia can serve as one. For it to do so, requires maintaining this NPOV. That many of us might agree very strongly with what he has promoted is not relevant.
The promotionalism was so rampant, that I consider it necessary to give a formal warning, which follows. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC) In particular, his
Noted what'sup 04:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While
objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be
a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.
DGG (
talk )
17:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Noted what'sup 04:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at
Louis Joseph Posner, you may be
blocked from editing. Thank you.
ukexpat (
talk)
14:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited VoterMarch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2000 presidential election ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Louis Joseph Posner 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. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 19:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
This is not an edit War. The reasons for editing have been given, and are based on sound reasons.what'sup 21:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Further, the additional items set forth in the Article under Career were made in accordance with the request that there be more secondary citations. what'sup 21:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
You need to slow down a bit. The subject is already on the fringes of notability. Adding material about his unspecified role in "important cases" and adding photos does not help the case but in fact by being such obvious makeweights, makes it worse. JohnInDC ( talk) 20:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
There is additional material to add, but will hold off for now.what'sup 20:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)what'sup 20:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Noted; what'sup 20:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The Article cited concerning the seized funds was largely the position of the NYPD during litigation. The Brief was filed in the Appellate Division of New York State and the 5 Judges of the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the position of Posner in their published Decision. what88 17:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Louis Joseph Posner was counsel for defendant Leonard Schaen in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) insider trading case involving Motel 6 in the U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., [1] and related class action suit.. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]
Posner also represented the plaintiff in Ox v. Union Central Life, a U.S. District Court case involving wrongful rescission of a disability insurance policy, which was reported in Westlaw, Lexis, Mealey's Litigation Reporter and the American Disabilities Reporter. [28] [29] User:What88 11:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
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 What88, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Dark Sun ( talk) 21:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on
John Vincent Saykanic requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a
repost of material that was previously deleted following a
deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this:
which appears inside of the speedy deletion (
{{db-...}}
) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). 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 page's discussion 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. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use
deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you.
JohnInDC (
talk)
03:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Edward Forchion, “The New Jersey Weedman”, a marijuana and First Amendment activist criminal defendant on appeal in the “Glen Ridge High School” rape case, which received national attention and spawned a book Our Guys by Bernard Lefkowitz Organized Crime, including Joseph “Scoops” Licata, Philadelphia-Atlantic City Mob Boss Nicodemo “Little Nicky” Scarfo, and New Jersey Mob Capo Robert “Cabert” Bisaccia, and New Jersey Crime Boss Martin Taccetta. The Article is supported by 10 independent references to reliable secondary sources. A previous version was deleted in July 2010 because: "no significant coverage of the person by independent reliable sources" and "A lawyer doing what a lawyer does is not particularly notable. Given the edit history, this page hints of self-promotion." John Saykanic, Esq. is also mentioned in the Wiki article about his client Ed Forchion, at /info/en/?search=Edward_Forchion What's Up (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC) This version has been on Wikipedia since March 2013 without any objections. The current version has significant coverage by independent reliable sources, there is no hint of self-promotion, and the lawyer is, in fact, notable.
Hello What88. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of VoterMarch, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "Not notable" isn't a valid reason for speedy deletion. I recommend you take this to WP:AFD if you still want this to be deleted, but beware that it may well be kept. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Your decline is noted. However, there still exists the following:
![]() | The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's
notability guidelines for companies and organizations. (December 2013) |
![]() | This user page may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: Excessive reliance on self-published or non-reliable sources; excessive quotes from news articles; detail out of proportion to actual third party coverage. Please help improve this user page if you can. |
However, the Wiki demand for notability and cleanup is not likely to occur for this Article. Most of the activity occurred in 2000 and 2001. A lot of the newspaper articles are no longer on the Internet. At that time there was a "media blackout" of activist events. Much of what happened was unreported, and is only listed in blogs and other sources which Wikipedia views as not reliable. If Wikipedia is only a collection of mainstream press articles, then Wikipedia is really just a summary of what somebody can just as readily get in a Google search. User:What88 21:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Once an article has been declined for speedy deletion, it is usually best to consider AfD or PROD. Tis article is eligible for neither WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G7. Considering its history and the number of refs, WP:AFD would be the venue in which to seek deletion. Dloh cierekim 14:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to refrain from tagging articles for deletion. There are many articles that need improvement. You might want to do more of that. Thanks Dloh cierekim 14:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
A link to a prior discussion would be required. I see no such discussion. I see a deletion for a page move. Dloh cierekim 15:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
The article was originally published by User:Lawline who was banned. I am reviewing archives to see discussion. Thank you. User:What88 15:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts per the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawline. Mark Arsten ( talk) 21:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC).
User:What88 03:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article VoterMarch 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/VoterMarch 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. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 12:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
What88 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This User was blocked as a sock puppet of Lawline. However, Lawline should have never been blocked in the first place and Lawline which was blocked in 2011 should be unblocked. The real story about User:Lawline is that an Administrator was making edits to an article written by Lawline. The Administrator had no knowledge of the subject area but engaged in cyber bullying against Lawline to get her way. Lawline indicated that he disagreed with some of her edits. Lawline also advised the Administrator that some of her edits could be viewed as libelous under New York law. However, Lawline NEVER threatened to sue and always respected the rights of Wikipedia and the Administrator. The Administrator then turned things around and claimed that Lawline threatened to sue Wikipedia which was not the case. The Administrator did this as a ploy to block and ban Lawline so she could could get Lawline out of the way and edit the Article the way she wanted to. Following the banning of Lawline, every User that in any way was associated with or supportive of Lawline was blocked and banned as a "sock puppet" of Lawline. Included in the "sock puppet" list was User:LuckyDan89 who was a college student who had been a Wikipedia user for over 5 years, and who was banned for making one small edit on a Lawline article. This User has never abused any accounts, has never vandalized any articles, and intends to continue as a productive member of the Wikipedia Community.
Decline reason:
Identical request to other confirmed Lawline socks. Yunshui 雲 水 11:31, 13 January 2014 (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.