User talk:DLindsley

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, DLindsley! Thank you for your contributions. I am Davey2010 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DLindsley, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

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

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page re-creation[edit]

Hey, I did find where the page took phrases word for word from this website and so closely paraphrased other parts to where it'd still be considered somewhat copyvio when placed next to the more direct statements. Even if the church were to give up the content as fair use, we'd still need to re-write it substantially to make it less casual and more like a neutral entry. This is pretty much the only true thing standing in the way of the article's re-creation at this point in time.

Now that said, the idea of the church article getting re-created in some format isn't an impossibility. We just need to have coverage for the church in reliable sources (WP:RS) to show notability. This can be somewhat difficult for local churches, as most aren't out to become one of the huge, huge Joel Osteen-esque megachurches, but it's not completely impossible. I notice that the building was constructed in the mid/late 1800s, which could make it likely that the church is registered at the National Register of Historic Places. For example, a Cathedral in my area was built in the early 1900s and is registered, so it's possible that your church is? If so, then I believe that it would pass notability guidelines on that basis. If not, then we'd have to show notability via coverage in RS. I'm assuming that you're a member of the church, so I do have to warn you about editing with a conflict of interest (WP:COI), but this could potentially make finding sources slightly easier in this instance since you would be able to ask the church Father(s) or some of the church's elders directly about this. The building does have to be on the historic register and we'd have to be able to show this via something like a link to the NRHP website, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DLindsley's reply: Thanks. I was angry that the article got deleted because there was an article about Sacred Heart Church in Dayton, Ohio. I was clearly told that a church is an organization. If their page was not removed, why mine? -Signed by DLindsley — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLindsley (talk • contribs) 00:53, 18 June 2014‎

It is natural for a new editor to check existing articles to see what sort of thing is acceptable, and model their own articles on what they have seen. However, unfortunately that is not an entirely reliable guide. It may be that Sacred Heart Church in Dayton is for some reason more notable than the church you wrote about, but it is also perfectly possible that it isn't, and one day someone will notice the article about it and nominate it for deletion. Thousands of articles get written that do not satisfy Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and while many of them get deleted very soon after being created, some of them don't get noticed for quite a while.

My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make (which you will, because we all do) will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DLindsley's reply: Thanks for the information. By the way, can tagging a page for deletion be done only by an administrator? DLindsley (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DLindsley's reply: Hi. Thank you very much for telling me how to get that to work. That is something I will need to remember when posting comments. Thank you very much. --DLindsley (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add your signature you need to actually type ~~~~ not all that stuff with &#126 repeated several times. The message above used the &#126 stuff because that shows up as ~~~~, whereas if it had included ~~~~ then that would have been automatically converted into a signature, which is not what was wanted in that message. I hope that makes sense, but in any case the point is that you should type ~~~~ to give a signature.

I have also answered your message on my talk page. I hope what I have written tells you what you want to know, but let me know if it doesn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nut Ridge, New York[edit]

Hello DLindsley,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Nut Ridge, New York for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Fylbecatulous talk 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

I've reverted a couple of your recent edits to Chartres Cathedral and Kalahari Resorts. At the article on Chartres you inserted unsourced speculation in an informal tone: please remember that you need a source for your edits, and that the language should be precise, clear and formal, avoiding the use of the first and second person. At Kalahari Resorts you mistook a standard Wikipedia convention in which both the locale and the state are linked separately for a double link. I've restored the original separate links. Additionally, please remember that Wikipedia doesn't accept advertising or promotion of any kind: the now-deleted Nut Ridge, New York article was not appropriate for an encyclopedia. We don't see language like "Nut Ridge is one of THE vacation sites to visit. We are easily able to tell you why" in an encyclopedia, for good reason.

We appreciate your enthusiasm, but please familiarize yourself with the rules (there are lots of them), starting with WP:5P. We can help with the others, just take it slowly, and remember that Wikipedia is fairly mature now, and there are reasons why most of the content is in its present form. For help in understanding the important issues with advertising (very much frowned upon) see WP:SPAM. For help in understanding the reasons why some things are included and others aren't, see the guidelines on notability. Many organizations are inherently notable, but many more aren't, just as particularly prominent buildings may be notable for their own sake, but most buildings aren't. Please feel free to ask for help. Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

Hi DLindsley. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Wikia, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Fylbecatulous talk 23:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the time to understand Wikipedia's inclusion and deletion criteria. Tagging Wikia "because it is a company" defies understanding. The word notable is vital here: notable company, notable business, notable person. Notable topics are what appear on Wikipedia. If you continue to place inappropriate deletion tags, your editing privileges may be suspended. Additionally, you appear to be adding content based on your own personal observations: this contravenes Wikipedia's policies on no original research and verifiability. Acroterion (talk)' 23:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dom497. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Kings Island seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dom497 (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DLindsley's reply: @all Sorry for the late response. I just did not get around to it for a while.

Anyway:

Thanks for the information. I have autism and am good at catching mistakes and catching violations of policies and stuff. The reason I tagged some of the pages for deletion was because they were about companies or organizations. You didn't permit articles about companies or organizations. Since you secretly changed the policy about that on me, I now know what I have done.

To Dom497: I see what you are saying now. We may need an article that describes the fates of the Kings Island attractions that are now gone. The reason I put the fate of the Son of Beast on the 2000 section was because there was no section describing it's fate. It was a very troublesome coaster, if you look at some YouTube videos about it. DLindsley (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nobody "secretly changed the policy."Companies and organizations are entitled to articles if they are notable. That has always been the case. Acroterion (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DLindsley's reply to Acroterion: Huh. Now I know why my articles get deleted after I create them. Like, I literally just cannot understand notability for some reason.

Take a look at the general notability guidelines, those go into considerable detail. In general, if a subject has received significant coverage in reputable media, books or scholarly publications, it is presumed to be notable. As for your articles that are deleted, the one I looked at (Nut Ridge) was pure advertising, entirely unsourced, and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DLindsley's reply: Just read them. I seem to now understand notability.

Stubs[edit]

Hallo, I see you added a {{stub}} tag to the top of the article St. Adalbert Polish Catholic Church.

Please note that stub tags go at the end of an article - see WP:ORDER - and be careful not to add the basic stub tag to an article like this which already has a more specific stub tag (in this case, it had two). It just wastes the time of other editors. Thanks, and Happy Editing. PamD 08:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was the same problem with Holy Cross Lithuanian Roman Catholic Church. PamD 08:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Catholic Church (Dayton, Ohio)[edit]

Please calm down. Your edit summary of "LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't make this a "reverting war"." was inappropriate. Have you checked the book which an editor is citing for the spelling "Emanuel"? If s/he says that the book uses that spelling, and you do not have an alternative source to support your version of the spelling, then their spelling must stay in the article. If you do not have a source to support your additions about the organ, then any other editor is entitled to remove that material. Please don't abuse editors who are abiding by Wikipedia policies.

There might, or might not, be useful ideas for you in the essay at Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Aspergers editors, but sadly the editor who wrote it is no longer active on Wikipedia so her talk page is no longer available as a place for aspie-spectrum editors to air any problems. Good luck and Happy Editing. PamD 08:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, but if you click here, you will find out that the spelling contribution was not by me. DLindsley (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Please do not add original research or your own personal ideas or assessments to Wikipedia. Your edit to Microwave oven [1] is completely inappropriate, the latest of many problematic edits, including the edit noted above with an insulting edit summary. Should you do anything of this sort again, I will block this account. Acroterion (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you've made a mess of Thaer Al-Darraji by moving it all over the place. I'm cleaning it up. No page moves, please. Competence is required. Acroterion (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this [2] is unacceptable. Is there any reason you shouldn't be blocked? Acroterion (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After considering the whole of your edits: the name-calling [3], the inappropriate response to reasonable warnings [4], the creation of advertisements [5], the insertion of incoherent original research [6], opinion [7], the reversion to your preferred reference-free and opinion-filled version [8], the labeling of a reversion of your botched CSD nomination as "vandalism" [9] and the completely botched pagemove of Thaer Al-Darraji [10] et seq, I've blocked this account. If you can demonstrate a satisfactory understanding of why these things are bad and how you will avoid such issues in the future, I am open to unblocking. Right now, though, you're making a great deal of work for other editors, and you've not responded appropriately to advice. Acroterion (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is stuff like "Thanks" "inappropriate" btw? DLindsley (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. How was I able to edit this page even though I am blocked? DLindsley (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks" is perfectly fine: "LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is not, nor are the unhelpful page moves, whimsical deletion tagging, reverting, and insertion of personal opinions and observations. Acroterion (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked editors can normally edit their talkpages unless they abuse the privilege. That is how we communicate, so it's left available. Acroterion (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. The reason I said "LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" was because I thought that was an unneeded reversion. I hereby apologize for the incident. DLindsley (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to do far more than that to be unblocked. Please review the linked edits I presented after my block notice: they're examples of disruptive or inappropriate editing, by no means comprehensive. You need to understand why they're problematic and explain how you'll avoid such problems in the future. Your apology for the name-calling is insufficient, as it contains a justification, which isn't the way one apologizes. Acroterion (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then:

I hereby promise never to do these things in the future. I tried, but all you do is judge me on my edits.

If you please, please click here.

Whatever it is, I'm not interested in looking at it: you need to keep your explanations on-wiki so we can all review them. It is up to you to explain here how you understand and will comply with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:SPAM and WP:DELETION among others, not to mention why randomly moving things around based on a whimsical notion of how deletion should be reflected in an article title is wrong. You need to make it plain that you understand these issues, not just say you won't do it again, since I',m not convinced you understand what was wrong in the first place. Acroterion (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what has happened. I tried to read your Terms of (all that), but I just couldn't because I was mainly focused on my editing.

I hate to say this, but, I just think my edits are necessary. But, unfortunately, you have to consider them "Unnecessary" and block me.

Also, about the "You threatening me?" message, you should never threaten other users. It's just not polite. DLindsley (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have declared that your disruptive edits were "necessary," and since I see no evidence that you understand what the problem is with your edits, I'm not going to pursue this conversation further. If you take the time to understand how your edits have disrupted the project to the point that you had to be blocked to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, then we can talk. Acroterion (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of the spelling edit of St. Mary's Catholic Church (Dayton, Ohio)[edit]

To Acroterion: This is a message that you must read to find out that you are obviously wrong. Do not even attempt to edit.

Once you click here, you will find out that you and a couple of others are wrong. The spelling change was made by someone else. Not me.

New Unblock Request (Please read)[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I feel I should not have been blocked because: 1. I was just making edits like I normally would. One thing is, why would you guys think I am a vandal when I am clearly not? 2. Like said above, the spelling contribution made on St. Mary's Catholic Church (Dayton, Ohio) was not me. You just blocked me for something I didn't do. Click here to find out proof of why. 3. One article was about multiple things. Why was there only one thing referenced in the title of the article when two other things were described as well in the article? 4. I really don't understand "competence is required". Why would you think that is a reason to block me? If you read the link of #2, you will find proof that I am telling the truth, and not a lie. DLindsley (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Looking at your edits, I see not much else besides belligerence and a lack of WP:COMPETENCE. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

None of your reasons address the reason that you were blocked, which have been explained in detail above. "The edits you normally would" were disruptive. Nobody thinks you're a vandal, but your edits showed a lack of understanding of the project's rules and requirements, and you do not appear to have made any progress in correcting that if you think you were blocked over spelling. Acroterion (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've since made an edit to the request form. If you just click on the link in #2, you will find my proof. I'm pretty sure you didn't click on the link and proceeded to leave the message. You must click on the link so you know what I am talking about in #2.

The reason says "competence is required" but I don't understand it. If you could please tell me the meaning of that phrase, I would appreciate it. Thanks. DLindsley (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason 2 has nothing at all with why you're blocked, but your insistence that it does is part of the problem: you clearly do not understand that your page moves, insertion of advertising, opinions and unsourced speculation in informal prose were disruptive and have chosen instead to focus on a tangent. That's where the competence issue lies: you need to have a sufficiently critical understanding of your own actions to be able to understand why they were disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an advertiser? No I am not. You just think I am because you want me banned, don't you? DLindsley (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I feel I should not have been blocked because: 1. I was just making edits like I normally would. One thing is, why would you guys think I am a vandal when I am clearly not? 2. Like said above, the spelling contribution made on St. Mary's Catholic Church (Dayton, Ohio) was not me. You just blocked me for something I didn't do. Click here to find out proof of why. 3. One article was about multiple things. Why was there only one thing referenced in the title of the article when two other things were described as well in the article? 4. I understand "competence" now. But, you administrators are ruining the world for everyone. This forced me to make an article on Wikinews about you guys. Please click here to read it. DLindsley (talk) 7:03 pm, 8 July 2014, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

Good luck with your new career as a journalist. In the meantime, since you are now abusing the unblock process to publicise your polemics, I have removed your editing access to this page. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is my new unblock request. However, it has a "please click on this". You must click on it so that you know what I am talking about. Yes. I am not lying. I wrote an article on Wikinews about you guys. You must read it. Sorry for the anger by the way. DLindsley (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you were not blocked a spelling change on the St. Mary's Catholic Church article. You've already been told this by several people. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To OhNoIt'sJamie: Thanks. But, please tell the other administrators I wrote an article on Wikinews about you administrators. If you do, I will be proud of you.

Thanks for the exciting news. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exciting news. Huh. If you believe that this is exciting news, check out the article I wrote for yourself. DLindsley (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]