User talk:Markscottwhistler

1400:

an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve it. Their comments may avoid breaches of civility by refraining from personal attacks but still interfering with civil and collaborative editing and discussion. Their edits are limited to a small number of pages that very few people watch. Conversely, their edits may be distributed over a wide range of articles to make it less likely that any given user watches a sufficient number of affected articles to notice the disruptions. Nonetheless, such disruptive editing violates Knowledge (XXG) policy and norms. Examples of disruptive editing Shortcut: WP:DISRUPTSIGNS See also: Knowledge (XXG):Editing policy This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. Cannot satisfy Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors. In addition, such editors might: Shortcuts: WP:DAPE WP:CTDAPE Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Knowledge (XXG):Civility, Knowledge (XXG):No personal attacks, Knowledge (XXG):Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles.

1271:

interview subjects ever invite their interviewers to a major event they are hosting. Yes. Do they attend? Yes. But I do not have a conflict of interest. I'm not trying to push an opinion, just help contribute to the encyclopedia of facts. And I appreciate your question... It's obvious I've interviewed Mike before, but shouldn't that make me even more credible to tell this story? I've clearly been transparent about the chapter about Mike in my book - via the cite in the page. But because it was my book, I did my best to make it a very small mention. Please go back and look at the page before all of this editing began. I appreciate what you are asking, but I've already disclosed the relationship directly in the page itself.

1373:(cur | prev) 03:11, 12 March 2014‎ NatGertler (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,989 bytes) (-682)‎ . . (→‎Business career: boring blogowhatever is not a WP:RS, and doesn't contain the claim of a record anyway) (undo) <---- Is this disruptive editing? Is it polite? Is it respectful even at all? After years of being treated like this, you bet, I really got upset the other night. For which, I apologize. I hope you can see why though. To have worked so hard - to constantly improve - to be disdainfully disregarded and quietly insulted for years. "boring blogowhatever" 2030:

editors who helped write this article over the years that will stand up to any Fringe-pushing POV edits. And even a slight change will become a battle. It’s only worth making changes to fringe editors with an agenda. Otherwise, the article is fairly useful. I use it all the time in the real life world as ways to point out pseudoscience. It’s probably one of a handful of articles on Knowledge (XXG) that’s actually academic-worthy. OrangeMarlin 17:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC) From Knowledge (XXG)

1317:

edits has been to undo them at times without any given reason, much less a reason that meets Knowledge (XXG) standards. Your response to being addressed on your talk page or to have edits brought up on the article's talk page has been not to post any response. And your definition of being "bullied" would seem to have to be horribly broad to include what has actually happened, which is other people trying to bring an imperfect page closer to guidelines.

1238:, you are saying that you have no COI - my question was slightly different. I asked if you are somehow related to Michael J Palumbo. In addition, I somehow get a feeling that you have definitely corresponded with the subject. Would you please clarify of you have ever done that? The first step to manage COI is to be transparent. COI by itself is not a problem - the problem happens when people try to hide this COI and then try to edit non-neutrally. -- 560: 413: 1082:

to Work For," and Standard and Poor's 2006 addition of Wiley to its MidCap 400 Index. In addition, Fortune magazine named Wiley one of the "100 Best Companies to Work For," and Wiley Australia has received the Australian government's "Employer of Choice for Women" citation every year since its inception in 2001. Wiley has also appeared on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "Best Workplaces for Commuters" list.

2350: 2094: 800: 475: 1949: 601: 285: 665: 998:- On the Michael J Palumbo page, so much text has been deleted... Salvageable text. There was no discussion, no attempt for the editors to reach out, no anything. Just text from the original article completely deleted, without caution, concern, or compassion. This has just been so heartbreaking, especially because Normal Protocol directly conflicts this behavior. 1009:

all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus. Try negotiating a truce or proposing a compromise through negotiation.

160: 23: 2191:

using all capitals and reverting three edits within a 24-hour period, but nowhere do you show any sign whatever of recognising or understanding the far more significant major problems there have been. That inspires no confidence that you actually understand what the problems are, or that you will in future avoid similar problems.

1745:

Let's discuss this edit. Foremost, Knowledge (XXG)'s job is to create an encyclopedia based on facts, not opinions. "No sign that this recent self-published book is significant" is an opinion, and not a fact. Thus the question becomes, "What is significant?" Knowledge (XXG) certainly does acknowledge

1655:

I'm so very sorry for the slow reply. This is an extremely stressful, and deeply emotional conversation. I need to request to please - well, if I step away from the conversation for the weekend... I only hope to respond in a well thought out- very appropriate manner - I am so close to this right now,

1316:

You are now asking "can we just please work together to create this page?", so apparently your actual interest is in this page in particular. However, when other people in the past have sought to improve the page in various ways, that has not gone well, has it? I can tell you that your response to my

1275:

Orangemike: Okay - so let me get this straight. You are talking about something completely unrelated to this page? Something from seven years ago, where I quickly learned what not to do on Knowledge (XXG). But you're now correlating an event from seven years ago, to a completely different page now...

1081:

About John Wiley & Sons: "Wiley has been honored frequently for its sustained financial success and exceptional culture. Accolades include Forbes magazine's list of the "400 Best Big Companies in America," Book Business magazine's citation of Wiley as "One of the 20 Best Book Publishing Companies

1724:

1. Foremost, I would like to apologize for the way I have handled my responses to editing in the past. I used all caps in my reply which is inappropriate, for which I apologize. I replied to editing by reverting edits, while also responding with strong language, which was inappropriate. I apologize.

1476:

Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict-of-interest or paid

1399:

Disruptive editors sometimes attempt to evade disciplinary action in several ways: Their edits occur over a long period of time, in which case no single edit may be clearly disruptive but the overall pattern is so. Their edits are largely confined to talk pages; such disruption may not directly harm

1366:

This has become about condemning me, and not the content of the page? I truly worked really hard to create a great encyclopedic entry. Disruptive editing - I mean - just knowing whatever we might try to produce - if it is going to be met with long-term disruptive - like some kind of bizarre grudge -

1312:

So your history of work at Knowledge (XXG) has been to repeatedly edit in 2009 to promote your novel, and then to go away and do just this COI editing starting in 2014. I cannot find anything in your editing record that would not fit into one of those two sections, so there's really no sign you have

1270:

Lemongirl: Yes, I know Mike, I interviewed him way back. And yes, I did attend his book release party. Do I have a conflict of interest? I don't think so. Does a journalist who meets his interview subject have a conflict of interest to report on/about him, just because they met for the interview? Do

994:

The very first section of this article is: Follow the normal protocol When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include

530:

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

2255:

In addition, I would like to add that yes, I do know Michael J Palumbo, I have interviewed him in the past. However, I have absolutely zero business relationship with him in any capacity, and am only attempting to work on the page, because I believe it is of merit to the Knowledge (XXG) community.

2247:

In addition, I realize speaking in all caps, along with speaking towards other editors is inappropriate and has no place within the Knowledge (XXG) community. Furthermore, I also understand that any dispute, and dispute resolution has a proper place and guidelines, and should not take place within

2190:

I have looked at your editing history, and at substantial parts of the walls of text you have posted on this page. Although you go through the motions of apologising, and say that you "would like to accept responsibility for errors", you in fact apologise only for a few minor details, such as your

1008:

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement: You must stay in the top three sections of this pyramid during disputes. Further information: Knowledge (XXG):Negotiation Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at

984:

I am so very emotional and upset because I do feel this page has been completely bullied by the editors. I feel so discouraged and powerless, to have worked so hard on a page, and then have editors come in and instead of actually adding any content (building), just delete. Aren't we here to build?

1812:

The most recent flag that has gone up on the page is to question the notability of the page and delete it. But all of the second party links that establish notability were deleted by another editor this past week. So first the links to second party sources that establish notability are deleted and

1752:

At no place in the Knowledge (XXG) entry for self-publishing does the article discuss what makes a self-published work notable. Which makes sense. Why would it. Significance, is simply an opinion, not a fact. Moreover, how can an editor ever deem a work significant or not, if he/she has never read

1540:

May I suggest that, if you ever wish to be unblocked, that you not try to announce that every editor that weighs in on your edits and on your unblock request must be partial and that they're bullying you, when they seem merely to be disagreeing with you. Even if you do not believe it possible that

1012:

At no point did any of the other editors attempt to follow this protocol. Instead just slashed as much text as possible. Given the amount of hard work I've put into this article, I would think this would infuriate almost anyone. This protocol has to work both ways. I should have reached out to the

2315:

Finally, I would absolutely love to work on the Michael J Palumbo with you personally NatGertler. Ideally, we could work closely together on the page, to get it done correctly, with proper sourcing. It would allow me to be the best possible contributor to Knowledge (XXG) I can possibly be, moving

2058:

Mark: you may have missed this, but during your weekend away, an administrator reviewed your request for your account to be unblocked, and turned you down. (You can see that at the top of this section of the Talk page.) As such, if you wish to get involved in addressing your content concerns, you

2275:

While I thank the editor for his apology, I must note that he still seems to have as the specific goal not general editing of Knowledge (XXG), but editing one specific page... a page which he has a demonstrable conflict of interest on, a conflict he has not fully admitted to. I ask that that be

2044:

3. At this point, it has felt like there has been zero positive contribution to the page Michael J Palumbo by the editors involved. While I did not handle the situation properly, for which I apologize, I also feel that there may be no other way to resolve this situation now, beyond arbitration.

2039:

The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Knowledge (XXG) and broaden its coverage.

1735:

2. It has felt to me that from the beginning, this page has been edited more from an opinionated standpoint of somehow discrediting the page, excessive deleting of salvageable text, while also seemingly very little effort by other editors to help build the page. It has felt like the sole goal is

1382:

Points #1 and #2 Their edits occur over a long period of time, in which case no single edit may be clearly disruptive but the overall pattern is so. Their edits are largely confined to talk pages; such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching

1320:

As for the claim that "Another editor said the book does not have an ISBN number", the closest I can find to that statement examining the article talk page and the histories of the talk page and the article itself is the edit summary "no links to sales sites, and book needs an ISBN" from LaMona,

2029:

Here is a comment by one of the more obtuse Skeptical editors concerning the value of the Pseudoscience article: I find these discussions tendentious. Why don’t editors spend time writing articles? As a warning, almost anything written here will involve edit warring. There are a large number of

950:

I still feel completely bullied, and feel that this page has been bullied, but regardless of how I feel, the only way forward is to work within the guidelines of Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. I understand I have reverted edits, and will ensure this does not happen again in the future. This much I

977:

I feel like because I challenged one edit, from an editor who has been giving this page a difficult time from the start, the consequence was that more editors came in and just completely tore the page to pieces. Even removing the same information that lives on other Knowledge (XXG) pages, like

969:

So why was this information removed from this page, and not the others. It was sourced correctly. This is just the tip of the iceberg... One editor deleted information mentioning the book he wrote. Another editor said the book does not have an ISBN number. ISBN-10: 0997459506 and ISBN-13:

1180:

Orangemike, could you please show me where me trying to "shoehorn" my novel occurred? Would you please show me where my novel was ever mentioned anywhere, even in the slightest? I'm just asking you politely to please show me what and where you are talking about. Please show us all.

973:

All of the external links were deleted, and much of the bio information was deleted as well - the editor called it "bio fluff". But again, if you look at George Soros' Wiki-page, Warren Buffet's Wiki-page, and pages of other business magnet's, all of the same information is there.

2311:

Anyway, I was wondering - wouldn't you want an expert on a subject to be one of the content creators of that page. Like, wouldn't one prefer to have a paleontologist - especially one who has written a book on the subject proving their expertise - to work on pages about dinosaurs?

1710:

2. A significant case for why and how I have become extremely unnerved by the excessive and unfounded editing within the page Michael J Palumbo. Specific examples of why, where, and how the editing of the page Michael J Palumbo has been excessive, opinionated, and unfounded.

1025:

What pushed me over the edge was when Michael Palumbo's book was deemed insignificant. I cannot get my mind around this because Encyclopedias are not about opinions, but rather, facts. He wrote a book, it's a fact. Who are we to decide whether a work is significant or not?

1502:

I'm back. And as for the accusations of disruptive edits, the list you enumerate from is not what constitutes disruptive edits, but how a disruptive editor might try to avoid detection. And even then, let's see what happens when the two points you point to are applied.

1282:

Please post the URL to the edits you are talking about, so we can all see them, and discuss them in relation to this conversation and the page for Michael J Palumbo. The page for Michael J Palumbo didn't even show up until 2014, so how can the two be correlated?

1070:

I don't think I've attempted to market my book at all, the book had one very small mention in the page, I believe. It's completely okay to leave it out. I'm just trying to build the page... And also, the book was published by John Wiley & Sons. How was that

171:

policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should

1121:

I'm not talking about your real book published by the reputable publisher Wiley; I'm talking about the non-notable self-published "Orwellian sci-fi" novel you attempted no less than four times to shoehorn into various places where it did not belong.

1522:

so no, my edits are far from confined to the talk page. One would be hard-pressed to even claim that I was preventing consensus from being reached on the talk page, as I first posted on the talk page in April 2014, and until two days ago, I was the

2019:

As the flags started to appear on the page, it has been almost impossible to defend them as more and more editors piled into the situation with the sole intent of simply discrediting the page, while also deleting as much information as possible.

1085:

Wiley authors have received numerous honors, and Wiley and its acquired companies have published the works of more than 450 Nobel laureates in every Nobel prize category: Literature, Economics, Physiology/Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, and Peace."

2376:

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.

1915:

Next, if we take a look at the initial edits by two of the editors, we see that based on Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines of disruptive editing… There is absolutely no saving or editing of salvageable text, other than one tag added by NatGertler…

946:

I also believe I should be unblocked because I have worked very, very hard on the page Michael J Palumbo over the past couple of years. I've done my absolute best to make sure all of the information is sourced, and the page is reliable.

1187:

Lemongirl, thank you for your comment, I have read the COI. I have zero conflict of interest here. I simply like the subject and believe I can do a good job covering it. But why I am starting to feel ganged up on and bullied again?

1386:

So in this entire conversation we haven't even been able to address the content proper. All of this is a personal attack. If we were able to address the content, maybe you would see that all of your personal attacks are unfounded.

1808:

In addition, as a list of recent media mentions of Mr. Palumbo, are twelve second party coverage and mentions of the book not enough? Are the twelve links to second party coverage not enough to establish notability for this page.

1728:

I understand that we must work as a team, and I can only provide assurance that I will do my absolute best to not just discuss changes with editors, but also follow all guidelines of the editing process within Knowledge (XXG).

1706:

The following entry contains three main sections: 1. Another apology for my use of caps and inappropriate responses to editorial changes, while also not following the proper editing guidelines while replying to other editing.

1794:

Furthermore, Timothy Draper, arguably one of the most prominent current venture capitalists in Silicon Valley has personally mentioned the book on his personal Twitter feed, clearly the book is important in its own market.

2251:

I understand that when multiple editors make changes, it is a good idea to listen to them, instead of arguing. Discussion is for the appropriate talk page, but has no place on the actual page where editing takes place.

2068:

is not the next level, it's basically the highest level. The next level would actually be discussion on the article's talk page, which you can engage in (even if you have a conflict of interest) once you are unblocked.

2380:

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.

1033:

His book is self-published and has been ignored by all those who might find it of use or interest, so it has no value here. Any clown can self-publish, but we are under no obligation to pay attention to that

1937:(cur | prev) 06:47, 9 August 2016‎ Lemongirl942 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,587 bytes) (-582)‎ . . (Undid revision 733638747 by Markscottwhistler (talk) Stop edit warring and come on the talk page) (undo) 2063:

first. You would not be able to do the interactions needed to address your content concerns while blocked. As for taking the matter to "arbitration", that has a specific meaning in Knowledge (XXG), and

2302:

I would actually like to work on a few other pages, including that of George Soros and stochastics. I've met George Soros twice and am an expert on reflexivity. I believe I can add quality content.

988:

Regardless, I apologize for my behavior. I can only account for my actions. I truly care about the content of this page and have worked very, very hard to make sure it is accurate and well sourced.

304:(COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Knowledge (XXG) articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the 1029:

Regardless - I completely handled the situation poorly, and for that I apologize. I do respect the other editors wholeheartedly and would love to work with them to add quality content to this page.

1925:(cur | prev) 10:36, 9 August 2016‎ Lemongirl942 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,259 bytes) (-284)‎ . . (Book and documentary not notable enough. Needs secondary sources anyway) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit) 2013:(cur | prev) 02:48, 9 August 2016‎ NatGertler (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,912 bytes) (-259)‎ . . (→‎Personal life: Continuing implementing changes suggested in 2014, without objection.) (undo) 1919:

Just pure deletion with zero attempt to salvage any of the text whatsoever. This type of behavior would put almost any content creator over the edge, feeling completely picked on and bullied:

26:

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG). Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Knowledge (XXG) pages.

1934:(cur | prev) 10:32, 9 August 2016‎ Lemongirl942 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,790 bytes) (-797)‎ . . (→‎Books and media: Not required. 2 minute coverage, copyvio and possible promotion) (undo) 1150:(for example, family/friend/aquantaince/colleague/employer/employee/business partner or any other relation)? Why are you so intensely interested in this particular article for years? -- 289: 75: 1982: 1512:

Their edits are largely confined to talk pages; such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve it.

1485:, I was deleting the use of "boringest.blogasian.com" as a reference, so "boring blogowhatever" is a reasonable pointer to the part of the edit I was talking about at the moment. 1596:

Knowledge (XXG) is a collaborative process. When multiple editors tell you the same thing, we call it a "consensus." If you can't deal with not always getting your own way (see

1146:, the first step to do here is to read the COI notice which has been give to you above. You need to disclose if you have any conflict of interest. Are you in any way related to 943:

I felt extremely emotional, and felt completely bullied. Regardless, it is not my place to speak towards other editors, or to raise my voice in caps. Please accept my apology.

2373: 1789: 951:

completely realize. And I apologize if my emotional reply, feeling so bullied, has crossed the line of acceptable behavior within Knowledge (XXG). It will not happen again.

564: 940:

Foremost, I apologize for writing in caps, in my replies to changes to the page Michael J Palumbo. I also apologize for speaking towards the editors, and not the editing.

2262:

Finally, I would like to apologize to NatGertler for offending in any way. I would like to apologize to LemonGirl, OrangeMike, and any other editors I may have offended.

1742:• (cur | prev) 23:14, 8 August 2016‎ NatGertler (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,484 bytes) (-244)‎ . . (No sign that this recent, self-published book is significant.) (undo) 451:

sources to verify information. Thus, controversial claims sourced to a website related to the subject, should never be added to the article. Also, one of our policies is

1016:

How can I focus on the content, when it's just deleted en masse? How can we work together when there is no discussion? Shouldn't we all be following the same protocol?

260:

I've just noticed that the book is self-published. Another reason why you should not add any mention of it to Knowledge (XXG). See the sction on self-published works at

2010:(cur | prev) 02:49, 9 August 2016‎ NatGertler (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,554 bytes) (-358)‎ . . (→‎References: remove references no longer invoked in the text.) (undo) 2501: 1907: 896:

After reading the discussion below, I don't think you've recognized where you've erred, I think you're blaming everyone else for your failure to establish consensus.

373:

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see

538:

Please do not do any more reverts. Continue to discuss on the talk page. You have already violated the 3 revert rule. If you revert any further, you will be blocked.

1753:

the work personally. Shouldn't the editor have some knowledge of the work, if he/she is going to make such an impactful judgement call on a work that is in print?

2134: 840: 708: 2016:(cur | prev) 02:47, 9 August 2016‎ NatGertler (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,171 bytes) (-582)‎ . . (Implementing changes on talk page for over two years without. . 2007:(cur | prev) 04:33, 9 August 2016‎ Markscottwhistler (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (12,136 bytes) (+582)‎ . . (Undid revision 733629932 by NatGertler (talk)) (undo) 1725:

I understand the editing guidelines in Knowledge (XXG) are in place for a reason, and I apologize for not following all of the proper channels and guidelines.

417: 2231:

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.

1460:

At what point do we get to begin to just talk about the content of the page in question and just simply fact check it with an open dialog and conversation?

1454:

And the entire evening, I've been trying to resolve this issue amicably, only to be met with constant resistance and resentment by the Knowledge (XXG) team.

930:

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.

2362: 2489: 1895: 963:

I don't understand why - because if we look at other major business magnet's pages - like George Soros... His wife's name, and children's names are there.

954:

I would like to continue to work on the page, and provide other content to Knowledge (XXG). All I would like to do is build reliable encyclopedia content.

489:. 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 article's 1013:

editors I felt were excessively picking on the page, but at the same time, shouldn't they have also, before just completely deleting passages and text?

2059:

should probably first focus on getting unblocked. As it says in the top of this section, it is possible to reapply to be unblocked, but you should read

1363:

Is there not a single impartial voice out there? Can we not just fact check the original content together and just let the facts speak for themselves?

676: 118: 2259:

Please accept my apology. I would like to take responsibility for my errors, and would truly only like to contribute positively to Knowledge (XXG).

1581:"THIS IS CRAZY! WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE A BOOK IS UNIMPORTANT? IT'S A PUBLISHED BOOK, HAS 15 FIVE STAR REVIEWS, AND IS AT THE TOP 100 BOOKS IN KINDLE") 1446:"Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Directly from the following Knowledge (XXG) policy page: 374: 498: 321:

articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;

2129: 1922:(cur | prev) 10:37, 9 August 2016‎ Lemongirl942 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,381 bytes) (-878)‎ . . (→‎References: Removed unused references) (undo) 1207: 835: 703: 293: 79: 1519: 1931:(cur | prev) 10:33, 9 August 2016‎ Lemongirl942 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,651 bytes) (-1,139)‎ . . (→‎Other sources: moved to talk page) (undo) 1635:

Thank you for your input and comments. I would like to reply in full in the morning. I need a little time to think about everything. Thank you.

1576:"Like, I said... Wikibullied. Let's just allow pure journalism and media handle this from here on out. YOUR DELETES show exactly what I'm tal." 2477: 2216: 2060: 1883: 915: 626: 1790:

https://www.amazon.com/Calculated-Risk-Michael-Palumbo-ebook/dp/B01F1N0I8O/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1471286930&sr=8-1

455:. Btw, I suggest you read the previous notice about COI and disclose any affiliation to anything about the content you have been editing. -- 2495: 1901: 27: 1928:(cur | prev) 10:33, 9 August 2016‎ Lemongirl942 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,543 bytes) (-108)‎ . . (→‎External links: One is enough) (undo) 380:

Please take a few moments to read and review Knowledge (XXG)'s policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to

50: 1515: 1666: 2483: 2461: 1968: 1889: 1867: 381: 366: 218: 168: 1991: 1506:

Their edits occur over a long period of time, in which case no single edit may be clearly disruptive but the overall pattern is so.

2502:

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13608464/1/upcoming-brexit-vote-rattles-u-s-markets-yes-vote-could-trigger-even-bigger-selloff.html

1908:

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13608464/1/upcoming-brexit-vote-rattles-u-s-markets-yes-vote-could-trigger-even-bigger-selloff.html

490: 421: 346: 306: 238: 164: 1756:

As of this morning, the book Calculated Risk: The Modern Entrepreneur's Handbook - the eBook version was ranked on Amazon.com as:

1065:"Any clown can self-publish" - Isn't this is same type of language that Knowledge (XXG) requests not to use in dispute resolution? 581:

Hello, I have posted it there so that other editors can help you understand our policies. I will refrain from editing the article

163:

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Knowledge (XXG), you may have a

1019:

Honestly, I would love to have a moderated discussion of what has been deleted, while also looking at other pages as examples.

121:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out

106: 2148: 1436:

concerns, but of which I have the evidence ready to show admins privately when appropriate. <--- Is this not a quiet threat?

854: 722: 506: 96: 622: 510: 311: 234: 970:

978-0997459500 on the book cover, on Amazon.com, and registered in the International ISBN database. How was this missed?

960:

As an example, one of your editors removed Michael J Palumbo's wife's name, and the names of his kids from the infobox.

1541:

you are in the wrong, acting in such a manner is not likely to paint you as a reasonable and cooperative contributor. --

1357:

Case in point. Not a single voice at Knowledge (XXG) to review this situation impartially. And the Personal Attacks...

191:

articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;

2490:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/shreyaagarwal/2016/06/23/volatility-touches-four-month-high-as-u-k-vote-looms/#59b0d138f5fd

2366: 2107: 1896:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/shreyaagarwal/2016/06/23/volatility-touches-four-month-high-as-u-k-vote-looms/#59b0d138f5fd

1376:

Insult and delete - not adding any additional content, or even making the slightest attempt to fact check and revise?

813: 672: 613: 608: 518: 198: 111: 2101: 1978: 807: 1279:

Where there is zero mention, or connection? Zero correlation. I am really feeling so completely bullied right now.

2106:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

812:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

1964: 1959: 389: 385: 261: 226: 222: 1037:

And by the way, at no point have you addressed your multiple and obnoxious attempts to add an advertisement for

523: 502: 486: 91: 86: 35: 2452: 1858: 2065: 1819:

Here are recent second party sources and coverage of Michael J Palumbo that more than establish "notability."

1488:

And now, I must be out the door; do not take lack of response to rest of your message to mean concurrence. --

2507: 2395: 2326: 2112: 1684: 1670: 1639: 1619: 1586: 1412: 1341: 1254: 1235: 1199: 1166: 1143: 1104: 995:

citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.

818: 780: 682: 447:), is not going to help. We edit according to Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. One of our requirements is to use 45: 2478:

http://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/2016-07-27/facebook-earnings-catapult-fb-stock-to-all-time-highs

1884:

http://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/2016-07-27/facebook-earnings-catapult-fb-stock-to-all-time-highs

1662: 1508:

Let's see, you've been editing this page longer than I have, with your first edits being weeks before mine.

1321:

which was not a claim that the book doesn't have an ISBN but an explanation for their edit, which included

1195: 2437: 2431: 2241:

This is my second appeal to be unblocked, so I can continue to contribute positively to Knowledge (XXG).

2202: 2048:

I would therefore, like to formally request that we move this discussion to the next level: Arbitration.

1843: 1837: 1608: 1467:

At this point, you are making an unblock request, so this discussion is actually supposed to be about you.

1243: 1155: 590: 572: 544: 501:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

460: 494: 448: 122: 2496:

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/06/17/another-brexit-headache-margin-calls-and-contract-uncertainty/

1902:

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/06/17/another-brexit-headache-margin-calls-and-contract-uncertainty/

1286:

Again, it's amazing that in Knowledge (XXG) Protocol our conversation is supposed to be about content.

332: 2357: 2341: 1481:

I'm not sure how you would take "boring blogowhatever" to be an attack on you, but if one looks at the

1147: 582: 482: 452: 297: 233:

For information on how to contribute to Knowledge (XXG) when you have conflict of interest, please see

2036: 1940:(cur | prev) 05:01, 9 August 2016‎ NatGertler (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,169 bytes) (+33)‎ . . (Added 2281: 2074: 1546: 1493: 1330: 1223: 1129: 1075: 1050: 901: 885:

Because I really care about the content, building an encyclopedia, and recognize where I have erred.

651: 429: 397: 301: 269: 246: 144: 618: 2455: 1861: 443:

Posting a long wall of text in caps and accusing another editor of not being impartial (as you did

82:. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 2484:

http://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/2016-07-06/health-care-stocks-are-quietly-moving-higher

2462:

http://wgnradio.com/2016/07/06/the-opening-bell-07-6-16-autonomous-cars-having-its-first-hardship/

1890:

http://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/2016-07-06/health-care-stocks-are-quietly-moving-higher

1868:

http://wgnradio.com/2016/07/06/the-opening-bell-07-6-16-autonomous-cars-having-its-first-hardship/

1471: 1433: 1306: 981:

The information was correctly sourced, so why was it removed here and not on George Soros' page?

40: 2316:

forward. I would truly be so very happy to work with you so very closely to complete the page.

292:

your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things

2386: 2244:

I would like to apologize for inappropriately reverting three edits within a 24-hour period.

2198: 1602: 1565: 1239: 1151: 957:

I ask you to please review the way this page has been edited - and what feels like - bullied.

765: 586: 568: 540: 456: 2443: 1849: 356: 355:

to the Knowledge (XXG) article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see

208: 2225: 924: 699: 632: 1759:

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #352,012 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)

1597: 1309:

concerns, but of which I have the evidence ready to show admins privately when appropriate.

130: 2305:

As for stochastics - on a technical analysis basis within trading, the formula is wrong.

2277: 2070: 1798: 1542: 1489: 1326: 1217: 1123: 1044: 897: 645: 425: 393: 265: 242: 140: 1813:

then a new flag appears saying notability must be established via second party sources?

2026: 1096:

I don't understand what's happening here? I would very much like to resolve this please.

129:

on your talk page and ask your question there. You may also be interested in seeing our

1087: 527: 237:. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see 2308:

Also, I believe I can definitely be a great contributor to many business mogul pages.

207:

to the Knowledge (XXG) article or website of your organization in other articles (see

1527:

person involved in conversation there. There was no one else's work there to disrupt.

101: 2382: 1403: 1394: 1360:

This is bullying. There are now three participating - and how many more watching?

761: 2515: 2405:

I would love to be able to contribute to the discussion about deleting the page.

2390: 2334: 2285: 2206: 2078: 1736:

simply to slash and delete as much content as possible, with no effort to build.

1701: 1695: 1674: 1650: 1630: 1611: 1550: 1497: 1423: 1352: 1334: 1265: 1247: 1228: 1177: 1159: 1134: 1115: 1055: 905: 769: 656: 594: 576: 548: 464: 433: 401: 273: 250: 148: 56: 416:

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

1948: 535:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 497:

among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See

2033:

Moreover, the article The Decline of Knowledge (XXG) by Tom Simonite mentions:

474: 2421: 1827: 1443:

I have nothing to hide - I've disclosed my relationship with Michael Palumbo.

2295:

Thank you NatGertler - and I would again like to apologize to you personally.

2179:

Second Unblock Appeal - I would like to accept responsibility for my errors.

1450:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information

1390:

This is where we are at. I'm asking once again, can we please work together?

1295:

I am asking you again, can we just please work together to create this page?

621:. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may 2453:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/benzinga-premarket-prep/id915782694?mt=2

1859:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/benzinga-premarket-prep/id915782694?mt=2

1216:

Your first five edits, from 07:24, 13 April 2009 to 23:46, 14 April 2009. --

748: 1719:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Michael_J_Palumbo&action=history

600: 2411:

Here is a list of many of Michael J Palumbo's recent media appearances...

1289:

Like, I feel like you guys are reaching to try to vilify me in some way?

664: 1301:

How else can I politely ask you for your help - so we can work together?

1463:

Once more, I keep asking - Can we please work on this article together?

1449: 284: 159: 22: 2438:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/audio/noon-business-hour-on-wbbm-newsradio/

2432:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/audio/noon-business-hour-on-wbbm-newsradio/

1844:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/audio/noon-business-hour-on-wbbm-newsradio/

1838:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/audio/noon-business-hour-on-wbbm-newsradio/

1440:

This was a threat. In direct violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s policies.

567:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

31: 1313:

intent to help improve Knowledge (XXG) despite years of contributions.

1803: 753:

was submitted on Aug 10, 2016 22:00:30. This review is now closed.

2037:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/

2023:

The article Knowledge (XXG) Bullying Editors by Tim Butler states:

1477:

editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy).

1432:

You have a provable COI, which I am not mentioning publicly due to

1305:

You have a provable COI, which I am not mentioning publicly due to

1747: 1533:

In any case, that's irrelevant to this discussion, as this is not

1076:

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470039086.html

629:, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: 1568:

removed unused ref links, including one to one of your own books:

1474:, you might have read further into that section to where it says 1184:

I'm asking you so politely again, can we please work together?

1043:

self-published book to various places where it did not belong. --

991:

I was just reading the normal protocol for dispute resolution -

217:

relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to

2467: 2456:

http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/benzinga-morning-show?refid=stpr

1873: 1862:

http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/benzinga-morning-show?refid=stpr

1560:

You keep asking "can we please work on this article together":

1298:

I keep trying to politely and humbly ask you to work together!

1191:

I'm asking you so politely again, can we please work together?

526:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 201:

about articles related to your organization or its competitors;

2449: 1942: 1855: 1379:

I'm sorry, is this how any of you would like to be treated?

964: 779:

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool.

1457:

I keep asking - Can we please work on this article together?

314:

for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

2092: 1739:

To begin one of the first edits that created a problem was:

798: 663: 599: 473: 2444:

http://schoolforstartupsradio.com/2016/07/calculated_risk/

2361:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

1850:

http://schoolforstartupsradio.com/2016/07/calculated_risk/

2213:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

912:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please

617:

from editing because it appears that you are not here to

2276:

taken into consideration when considering his appeal. --

2233:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

932:

Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

2374:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Michael J Palumbo

2355:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

2162: 2158: 2152: 2143: 2139: 2125: 2121: 2117: 1974: 1799:

https://twitter.com/TimDraper/status/764137168386269184

1718: 1580: 1575: 1482: 1370:

NatGertler, how long have you been editing this page?

868: 864: 858: 849: 845: 831: 827: 823: 736: 732: 726: 717: 713: 695: 691: 687: 517:

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being

444: 424:

incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.

2027:

http://ethericstudies.org/wikipedia-bullying-editors/

1404:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing

1395:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing

565:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

407:

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

2100:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an

1702:

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Markscottwhistler

1088:

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-301697.html

806:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an

509:. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary 1746:self-published authors as seen through the entry: 2265:Thank you so much, and please accept my apology. 1816:This is infuriating, discouraging, and hurtful. 1589:are devoted to railing against a different editor. 1100:Thank you so much! Please - can we work together? 328:on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the 2448:7/6/16 Benzinga: PreMarket Prep (58 minutes in)- 1854:7/6/16 Benzinga: PreMarket Prep (58 minutes in)- 2442:7/19/16 School For Startups Radio – (6:30 in) - 1963:, potentially preventing the article from being 1848:7/19/16 School For Startups Radio – (6:30 in) - 493:to work toward making a version that represents 418:Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest/Noticeboard 235:our frequently asked questions for organizations 38:to learn more about Knowledge (XXG). Thank you. 2436:7/25/16 WBBM Noon Business Hour – (26:10 in) - 1842:7/25/16 WBBM Noon Business Hour – (26:10 in) - 533:even if you don't violate the three-revert rule 2430:8/8/16 WBBM Noon Business Hour – (13:30 in) - 1836:8/8/16 WBBM Noon Business Hour – (13:30 in) - 675:is asking that their block be reviewed on the 34:" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the 365:so that you do not violate Knowledge (XXG)'s 8: 1600:), you should probably not be editing here. 1002:The second point of Dispute Resolution is: 2422:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpWdhKCuDtE 1828:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpWdhKCuDtE 1783:Entrepreneurship & Small Business : --> 485:shows that you are currently engaged in an 1983:reliable, independent, third-party sources 1804:https://en.wikipedia.org/Timothy_C._Draper 1660: 1292:Is that what this conversation is about? 2466:7/6/16 Market Wrap With Moe (23:20 in) - 2460:7/6/16 WGN: The Opening Bell (3:45 in) - 2363:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines 2061:Knowledge (XXG):Guide to appealing blocks 1992:Learn how and when to remove this message 1872:7/6/16 Market Wrap With Moe (23:20 in) - 1866:7/6/16 WGN: The Opening Bell (3:45 in) - 1977:by replacing them with more appropriate 1748:https://en.wikipedia.org/Self-publishing 1960:too closely associated with the subject 2482:7/6/16 US News & World Report - 2476:7/27/16 US News & World Report - 2248:the history of editing of any page. 1888:7/6/16 US News & World Report - 1882:7/27/16 US News & World Report - 1700:User Talk Page for Markscottwhistler 1428:This was stated above by NatGertler: 965:https://en.wikipedia.org/George_Soros 167:. In keeping with Knowledge (XXG)'s 7: 2414:Doesn't this list prove notability? 1656:I need to step away for a few days. 563:There is currently a discussion at 341:when discussing affected articles, 239:our conflict of interest guidelines 125:, ask me on my talk page, or place 92:The five pillars of Knowledge (XXG) 978:children's names in the infobox. 131:intuitive guide to Knowledge (XXG) 14: 2372:The article will be discussed at 2194:The editor who uses the pseudonym 1774:Management & Leadership : --> 1766:Management & Leadership : --> 1140:(Sorry for butting in Orangemike) 2348: 1958:may rely excessively on sources 1947: 1383:consensus on how to improve it. 558: 411: 283: 158: 30:and using Knowledge (XXG) as a " 21: 1717:Link to the page in question: 1470:As for your concerns regarding 522:—especially if you violate the 481:Your recent editing history at 324:instead, you are encouraged to 279:Managing a conflict of interest 1323:adding the ISBN to the article 585:in the meantime. Thank you. -- 307:conflict of interest guideline 154:Potential conflict of interest 74:Hello, Markscottwhistler, and 1: 2468:http://marketwrapwithmoe.com/ 2408:But I'm not allowed I guess? 1874:http://marketwrapwithmoe.com/ 1558:Comment from uninvoled editor 1005:Discuss with the other party 677:Unblock Ticket Request System 288:Hello, Markscottwhistler. We 2004:tag to article (TW)) (undo) 1714:3. Request for arbitration. 223:verifiability of information 107:How to write a great article 2516:23:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC) 2450:https://soundcloud.com/bztv 2391:18:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC) 2335:23:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC) 2286:21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC) 2207:12:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC) 2104:, who declined the request. 2079:20:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 1856:https://soundcloud.com/bztv 1696:03:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC) 1675:12:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC) 1651:08:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC) 1631:06:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1612:14:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1551:14:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1518:to the article itself, and 1498:13:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1424:05:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1353:04:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1335:03:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1266:01:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1248:01:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1229:01:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1178:01:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1160:01:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1135:00:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1116:00:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 1056:00:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 906:02:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC) 810:, who declined the request. 770:22:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC) 657:13:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC) 76:welcome to Knowledge (XXG)! 2531: 2420:6/30/16 WHDT World News - 1826:6/30/16 WHDT World News - 1782:Business & Money : --> 1775:Consolidation & Merger 1773:Business & Money : --> 1767:Consolidation & Merger 1765:Business & Money : --> 1585:The bulk of your edits to 595:12:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 577:12:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 549:11:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 465:10:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 434:05:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC) 402:21:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC) 274:05:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 251:05:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 149:05:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 57:23:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 2402:) 18:00, 28 August 2016 2217:guide to appealing blocks 1780:251 in Kindle Store : --> 916:guide to appealing blocks 627:guide to appealing blocks 319:avoid editing or creating 123:Knowledge (XXG):Questions 2365:or whether it should be 2051:Thank you so very much, 1763:45 in Kindle Store : --> 784: 2299:A couple quick items… 1367:is just discouraging. 937:Dear Knowledge (XXG), 2097: 1784:Entrepreneurship : --> 1587:Talk:Michael J Palumbo 803: 668: 604: 478: 363:exercise great caution 294:you have written about 178:exercise great caution 2500:6/15/16 The Street - 2149:change block settings 2096: 2088:Second Unblock Appeal 1906:6/15/16 The Street - 855:change block settings 802: 723:change block settings 667: 637:Your reason here ~~~~ 625:by first reading the 619:build an encyclopedia 603: 477: 420:regarding a possible 382:neutral point of view 312:FAQ for organizations 219:neutral point of view 169:neutral point of view 1659:Thank you so much. 775:UTRS Account Request 519:blocked from editing 422:conflict of interest 302:conflict of interest 209:Knowledge (XXG):Spam 199:deletion discussions 165:conflict of interest 2319:Thank you so much, 1781:Kindle eBooks : --> 1764:Kindle eBooks : --> 1520:9 to the talk page, 2098: 1772:120 in Books : --> 804: 749:UTRS appeal #16312 669: 605: 507:dispute resolution 479: 97:How to edit a page 80:your contributions 2488:6/23/16 Forbes - 2396:markscottwhistler 2358:Michael J Palumbo 2342:Michael J Palumbo 2238:Knowledge (XXG), 2196: 2113:Markscottwhistler 2002: 2001: 1994: 1894:6/23/16 Forbes - 1686:Markscottwhistler 1677: 1665:comment added by 1641:Markscottwhistler 1621:Markscottwhistler 1566:User:Lemongirl942 1414:Markscottwhistler 1343:Markscottwhistler 1256:Markscottwhistler 1236:Markscottwhistler 1212: 1200:Markscottwhistler 1198:comment added by 1168:Markscottwhistler 1148:Michael J Palumbo 1144:Markscottwhistler 1141: 1106:Markscottwhistler 819:Markscottwhistler 781:Markscottwhistler 683:Markscottwhistler 623:appeal this block 583:Michael J Palumbo 524:three-revert rule 483:Michael J Palumbo 300:, you may have a 298:Michael J Palumbo 139:Again, welcome! 2522: 2352: 2351: 2230: 2224: 2192: 2168: 2166: 2155: 2137: 2135:deleted contribs 2095: 1997: 1990: 1986: 1951: 1943: 1693: 1687: 1648: 1642: 1628: 1622: 1606: 1537:unblock request. 1421: 1415: 1350: 1344: 1263: 1257: 1226: 1220: 1211: 1192: 1175: 1169: 1139: 1132: 1126: 1113: 1107: 1053: 1047: 929: 923: 874: 872: 861: 843: 841:deleted contribs 801: 752: 751: 742: 740: 729: 714:abuse filter log 711: 709:deleted contribs 654: 648: 640: 562: 561: 415: 414: 367:content policies 337: 331: 287: 262:WP:Verifiability 162: 128: 53: 48: 43: 25: 2530: 2529: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2403: 2353: 2349: 2346: 2268:Kind regards, 2236: 2228: 2222: 2221:, then use the 2210: 2181: 2156: 2146: 2132: 2115: 2108:blocking policy 2093: 2090: 1998: 1987: 1972: 1952: 1691: 1685: 1646: 1640: 1626: 1620: 1604: 1419: 1413: 1348: 1342: 1261: 1255: 1224: 1218: 1193: 1173: 1167: 1130: 1124: 1111: 1105: 1051: 1045: 935: 927: 921: 920:, then use the 909: 887: 862: 852: 838: 821: 814:blocking policy 799: 796: 777: 758: 747: 746: 730: 720: 706: 685: 652: 646: 642: 630: 559: 556: 511:page protection 472: 441: 412: 409: 390:autobiographies 335: 329: 326:propose changes 296:in the article 281: 258: 241:. Thank you. 227:autobiographies 215:avoid breaching 156: 126: 112:Manual of Style 67: 51: 46: 41: 19: 12: 11: 5: 2528: 2526: 2494:6/17/16 WSJ - 2472: 2426: 2394: 2347: 2345: 2340:Nomination of 2338: 2322:Mark Whistler 2297: 2296: 2291: 2289: 2288: 2271:Mark Whistler 2211: 2188: 2184:Decline reason 2177: 2173:Request reason 2170: 2091: 2089: 2086: 2084: 2082: 2081: 2066:WP:ARBITRATION 2054:Mark Whistler 2043: 2000: 1999: 1955: 1953: 1946: 1912: 1900:6/17/16 WSJ - 1878: 1832: 1822: 1787: 1786: 1777: 1776: 1769: 1768: 1732: 1723: 1680: 1617: 1615: 1614: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1583: 1578: 1570: 1569: 1556: 1554: 1553: 1538: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1510: 1500: 1486: 1479: 1468: 1438: 1437: 1408: 1393: 1338: 1337: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1274: 1251: 1250: 1232: 1231: 1163: 1162: 1137: 1098: 1097: 1092: 1080: 1073: 1072: 1067: 1066: 1061: 1059: 1058: 1035: 1001: 910: 894: 890:Decline reason 883: 879:Request reason 876: 797: 795: 794:Unblock Appeal 792: 790: 776: 773: 756: 744: 662: 606:You have been 598: 555: 552: 536: 471: 468: 440: 437: 408: 405: 392:. Thank you. 371: 370: 360: 350: 345:your COI (see 339: 322: 280: 277: 257: 256:Self-published 254: 231: 230: 212: 202: 192: 155: 152: 119:sign your name 115: 114: 109: 104: 99: 94: 89: 78:Thank you for 66: 63: 61: 18: 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2527: 2518: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2508:Mark Whistler 2504: 2503: 2498: 2497: 2492: 2491: 2486: 2485: 2480: 2479: 2474: 2470: 2469: 2464: 2463: 2458: 2457: 2454: 2451: 2446: 2445: 2440: 2439: 2434: 2433: 2428: 2424: 2423: 2418: 2415: 2412: 2409: 2406: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2378: 2375: 2370: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2359: 2343: 2339: 2337: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2327:Mark Whistler 2323: 2320: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2306: 2303: 2300: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2269: 2266: 2263: 2260: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2242: 2239: 2235: 2234: 2227: 2220: 2218: 2209: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2195: 2187: 2185: 2180: 2176: 2174: 2169: 2164: 2160: 2154: 2150: 2145: 2141: 2136: 2131: 2127: 2126:global blocks 2123: 2122:active blocks 2119: 2114: 2109: 2105: 2103: 2102:administrator 2087: 2085: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2067: 2062: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2046: 2041: 2038: 2034: 2031: 2028: 2024: 2021: 2017: 2014: 2011: 2008: 2005: 1996: 1993: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1961: 1956:This article 1954: 1950: 1945: 1944: 1941: 1938: 1935: 1932: 1929: 1926: 1923: 1920: 1917: 1913: 1910: 1909: 1904: 1903: 1898: 1897: 1892: 1891: 1886: 1885: 1880: 1876: 1875: 1870: 1869: 1864: 1863: 1860: 1857: 1852: 1851: 1846: 1845: 1840: 1839: 1834: 1830: 1829: 1824: 1820: 1817: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1805: 1801: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1791: 1779: 1778: 1771: 1770: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1757: 1754: 1750: 1749: 1743: 1740: 1737: 1733: 1730: 1726: 1721: 1720: 1715: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1703: 1698: 1697: 1694: 1688: 1681: 1678: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1657: 1653: 1652: 1649: 1643: 1636: 1633: 1632: 1629: 1623: 1613: 1610: 1609: 1607: 1599: 1595: 1594: 1588: 1584: 1582: 1579: 1577: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1559: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1539: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1521: 1517: 1511: 1509: 1505: 1504: 1501: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1484: 1480: 1478: 1473: 1469: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1461: 1458: 1455: 1452: 1451: 1447: 1444: 1441: 1435: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1426: 1425: 1422: 1416: 1409: 1406: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1396: 1391: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1377: 1374: 1371: 1368: 1364: 1361: 1358: 1355: 1354: 1351: 1345: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1308: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1299: 1296: 1293: 1290: 1287: 1284: 1280: 1277: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1264: 1258: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1234: 1233: 1230: 1227: 1221: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1189: 1185: 1182: 1179: 1176: 1170: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1138: 1136: 1133: 1127: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1114: 1108: 1101: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1090: 1089: 1083: 1078: 1077: 1069: 1068: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1057: 1054: 1048: 1042: 1041: 1036: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1027: 1023: 1020: 1017: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1003: 999: 996: 992: 989: 986: 982: 979: 975: 971: 967: 966: 961: 958: 955: 952: 948: 944: 941: 938: 934: 933: 926: 919: 917: 908: 907: 903: 899: 893: 891: 886: 882: 880: 875: 870: 866: 860: 856: 851: 847: 842: 837: 833: 832:global blocks 829: 828:active blocks 825: 820: 815: 811: 809: 808:administrator 793: 791: 788: 786: 782: 774: 772: 771: 767: 763: 757: 754: 750: 743: 738: 734: 728: 724: 719: 715: 710: 705: 701: 697: 696:global blocks 693: 692:active blocks 689: 684: 679: 678: 674: 666: 661: 659: 658: 655: 649: 638: 634: 628: 624: 620: 616: 615: 611: 610: 602: 597: 596: 592: 588: 584: 579: 578: 574: 570: 566: 553: 551: 550: 546: 542: 539: 534: 529: 525: 521: 520: 514: 512: 508: 504: 500: 496: 492: 488: 484: 476: 469: 467: 466: 462: 458: 454: 450: 446: 438: 436: 435: 431: 427: 423: 419: 406: 404: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 378: 376: 368: 364: 361: 358: 354: 353:avoid linking 351: 348: 344: 340: 334: 327: 323: 320: 317: 316: 315: 313: 309: 308: 303: 299: 295: 291: 286: 278: 276: 275: 271: 267: 263: 255: 253: 252: 248: 244: 240: 236: 228: 224: 220: 216: 213: 210: 206: 203: 200: 196: 195:participating 193: 190: 186: 183: 182: 181: 179: 175: 170: 166: 161: 153: 151: 150: 146: 142: 137: 134: 132: 124: 120: 113: 110: 108: 105: 103: 100: 98: 95: 93: 90: 88: 85: 84: 83: 81: 77: 72: 71: 64: 62: 59: 58: 55: 54: 49: 44: 37: 33: 29: 24: 16: 2511: 2505: 2499: 2493: 2487: 2481: 2475: 2471: 2465: 2459: 2447: 2441: 2435: 2429: 2425: 2419: 2416: 2413: 2410: 2407: 2404: 2399: 2379: 2371: 2356: 2354: 2344:for deletion 2330: 2324: 2321: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2307: 2304: 2301: 2298: 2290: 2270: 2267: 2264: 2261: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2243: 2240: 2237: 2232: 2214: 2212: 2199:JamesBWatson 2193: 2189: 2183: 2182: 2178: 2172: 2171: 2144:creation log 2111: 2099: 2083: 2053: 2050: 2047: 2042: 2035: 2032: 2025: 2022: 2018: 2015: 2012: 2009: 2006: 2003: 1988: 1973:Please help 1957: 1939: 1936: 1933: 1930: 1927: 1924: 1921: 1918: 1914: 1911: 1905: 1899: 1893: 1887: 1881: 1877: 1871: 1865: 1853: 1847: 1841: 1835: 1831: 1825: 1821: 1818: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1802: 1797: 1793: 1788: 1758: 1755: 1751: 1744: 1741: 1738: 1734: 1731: 1727: 1722: 1716: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1699: 1690: 1682: 1679: 1667:73.95.135.15 1661:— Preceding 1658: 1654: 1645: 1637: 1634: 1625: 1616: 1601: 1557: 1555: 1534: 1526: 1513: 1507: 1475: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1453: 1448: 1445: 1442: 1439: 1427: 1418: 1410: 1407: 1402: 1398: 1392: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1378: 1375: 1372: 1369: 1365: 1362: 1359: 1356: 1347: 1339: 1322: 1300: 1297: 1294: 1291: 1288: 1285: 1281: 1278: 1273: 1269: 1260: 1252: 1240:Lemongirl942 1203: 1194:— Preceding 1190: 1186: 1183: 1172: 1164: 1152:Lemongirl942 1110: 1102: 1099: 1091: 1084: 1079: 1074: 1060: 1039: 1038: 1028: 1024: 1021: 1018: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1004: 1000: 997: 993: 990: 987: 983: 980: 976: 972: 968: 962: 959: 956: 953: 949: 945: 942: 939: 936: 931: 913: 911: 895: 889: 888: 884: 878: 877: 850:creation log 817: 805: 789: 778: 759: 755: 745: 718:creation log 681: 673:blocked user 670: 660: 643: 636: 614:indefinitely 612: 607: 587:Lemongirl942 580: 569:Lemongirl942 557: 541:Lemongirl942 537: 532: 516: 515: 480: 457:Lemongirl942 449:WP:SECONDARY 442: 410: 379: 372: 362: 352: 342: 333:request edit 325: 318: 305: 282: 259: 232: 214: 204: 194: 188: 184: 177: 173: 157: 138: 135: 116: 87:Introduction 73: 69: 68: 60: 39: 36:welcome page 20: 2278:Nat Gertler 2071:Nat Gertler 1543:Nat Gertler 1490:Nat Gertler 1327:Nat Gertler 1219:Orange Mike 1125:Orange Mike 1046:Orange Mike 647:Orange Mike 503:noticeboard 470:August 2016 453:WP:NOTPROMO 439:Some advice 426:Nat Gertler 394:Nat Gertler 347:WP:DISCLOSE 28:Advertising 2140:filter log 1975:improve it 1965:verifiable 1514:I've done 898:PhilKnight 846:filter log 700:autoblocks 554:ANI notice 338:template); 266:Dougweller 264:. Thanks. 243:Dougweller 141:Dougweller 136:Dougweller 127:{{helpme}} 70:Welcome... 17:April 2009 2215:read the 2159:checkuser 2118:block log 1979:citations 1472:WP:OUTING 1434:WP:OUTING 1307:WP:OUTING 914:read the 865:checkuser 824:block log 733:checkuser 688:block log 495:consensus 491:talk page 2130:contribs 1785:Startups 1663:unsigned 1605:itsJamie 1516:21 edits 1208:contribs 1196:unsigned 836:contribs 704:contribs 635:|reason= 531:warring— 505:or seek 487:edit war 386:sourcing 343:disclose 189:creating 2383:MSJapan 2367:deleted 2226:unblock 2153:unblock 1969:neutral 1142:. Umm, 1071:missed? 925:unblock 859:unblock 762:UTRSBot 727:unblock 633:unblock 609:blocked 528:reverts 375:WP:PAID 357:WP:SPAM 290:welcome 211:); and, 205:linking 185:editing 117:Please 65:Welcome 32:soapbox 2473:PRINT 2427:AUDIO 2417:VIDEO 1879:PRINT 1833:AUDIO 1823:VIDEO 1598:WP:OWN 1564:After 225:, and 180:when: 2219:first 1034:fact. 918:first 671:This 174:avoid 52:Space 2512:talk 2400:talk 2387:talk 2331:talk 2282:talk 2203:talk 2075:talk 1967:and 1692:Talk 1671:talk 1647:Talk 1627:Talk 1603:OhNo 1547:talk 1525:only 1494:talk 1483:edit 1420:Talk 1349:Talk 1331:talk 1325:. -- 1262:Talk 1244:talk 1225:Talk 1204:talk 1174:Talk 1156:talk 1131:Talk 1112:Talk 1052:Talk 1040:your 1022:--- 902:talk 785:talk 766:talk 653:Talk 591:talk 573:talk 545:talk 461:talk 445:here 430:talk 398:talk 388:and 310:and 270:talk 247:talk 145:talk 102:Help 47:From 42:Them 2201:" ( 2163:log 2110:). 1981:to 869:log 816:). 737:log 513:. 499:BRD 377:). 197:in 187:or 176:or 2514:) 2506:-- 2389:) 2369:. 2333:) 2325:-- 2284:) 2229:}} 2223:{{ 2205:) 2186:: 2175:: 2157:• 2151:• 2147:• 2142:• 2138:• 2133:• 2128:• 2124:• 2120:• 2077:) 2069:-- 1689:| 1683:-- 1673:) 1644:| 1638:-- 1624:| 1618:-- 1549:) 1535:my 1496:) 1417:| 1411:-- 1346:| 1340:-- 1333:) 1259:| 1253:-- 1246:) 1222:| 1210:) 1206:• 1171:| 1165:-- 1158:) 1128:| 1122:-- 1109:| 1103:-- 1049:| 928:}} 922:{{ 904:) 892:: 881:: 863:• 857:• 853:• 848:• 844:• 839:• 834:• 830:• 826:• 787:) 768:) 760:-- 741:) 731:• 725:• 721:• 716:• 712:• 707:• 702:• 698:• 694:• 690:• 680:: 650:| 644:-- 641:. 639:}} 631:{{ 593:) 575:) 547:) 463:) 432:) 400:) 384:, 359:); 349:); 336:}} 330:{{ 272:) 249:) 221:, 147:) 133:. 2510:( 2398:( 2385:( 2329:( 2280:( 2197:" 2167:) 2165:) 2161:( 2116:( 2073:( 1995:) 1989:( 1985:. 1971:. 1669:( 1545:( 1492:( 1329:( 1242:( 1202:( 1154:( 900:( 873:) 871:) 867:( 822:( 783:( 764:( 739:) 735:( 686:( 589:( 571:( 543:( 459:( 428:( 396:( 369:. 268:( 245:( 229:. 143:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.