User talk:Ceylobo

Welcome!
Hello, Ceylobo, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Epeefleche (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

April 2014
Hello, I'm Epeefleche. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Please do not remove material that is properly cited to reliable sources. Such entries are the opposite of original research - it is not original research.'' Epeefleche (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Brian Grazer, you may be blocked from editing. As here, where you did it with a completely misleading edit summary. Epeefleche (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Brian Grazer. And again here -- you used a misleading edit summary to hide deletion from the article. Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You wrote (and I repeat here, to keep it in one place) the following:

"'Hi Epeefleche. Thank you for your notes and suggestions, which I appreciate greatly. However, I am not a new editor to Wiki. In fact, I opened my Wiki account in 2007 and have studied Wiki rules and policies very carefully during the ensuing 7 years with the intention of becoming a more active editor as well as in connection with my doctoral studies. You've mentioned that I 'blanked out articles' but that is incorrect. I removed promotional references that were clearly against Wiki policy and were unsubstantiated by fact, as confirmed by my extensive research on the subject. With the Brian Grazer article, I removed a two-para unsubstantiated reference to one of his girl friends. As you will note, Mr. Grazer has been married 3 separate times and there is only a one-line reference to ALL THREE of his spouses. However, two obviously promotional paras were dedicated to an alleged 5-year relationship with a Vietnamese woman that is disputed by the article's subject and unsupported by my research. Moreover, the same woman also appears on the list of Famous Vietnamese-Americans when the criteria of that article itself denotes that all subjects must have acquired recognition IN THEIR RESPECTIVE FIELDS both in the U.S. and their country of origin. That was obviously NOT the case here, as all references to the individual's notability were unrelated to any achievements in the U.S. in their respective field and, instead, pointed to a relationship with Grazer plus an affair with another married man, Eric Schmidt. As you will note, Mr. Grazer has been involved with a well-known journalist for several years now but there is no mention of that relationship in his article."

"'Likewise, the Shafiroff article fails Wiki notability. Notability was disputed by two other editors before I added the deletion template. However, since you have now removed that template, I will propose an AfD discussion to ensure that notability is discussed more fully and a consensus reached. In the future, I would greatly appreciate that you assume good faith and leave me a normal message instead of using 'vandal' text. As for my other edits, I provided citations to explain them. I have no doubt that we're both working towards the same end of maintaing the integrity of information on Wiki and weeding out the clearly promotional junk which, unfortunately, appears to be a widespread epidemic on here. Thank you. -- Ceylobo (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)'.'"


 * As to you saying that, despite your few edits, you have spent the last years studying wikipedia policies, I found that interesting. I would have thought you had edited before.  Is this the first time you have edited, either as an IP or under any name?


 * As to your deletion of material, please -- when you use quotes -- quote what I write. I wrote to you "I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary.... Please do not remove material that is properly cited to reliable sources. Such entries are the opposite of original research - it is not original research."  And in fact, that is precisely, indubitably, what you did.


 * In addition, the material was not "promotional" or "clearly against Wiki policy" or "unsubstantiated by fact" or "alleged". It was factual, dry, RS-supported material.  The opposite of what you say.


 * Also, you now write that your edit is driven by your "extensive research on the subject." You should know, that your personal knowledge -- whether you are personally connected to the subject (or what you say he disputes, but no RS says he disputes), or are him, or his PR agent, or his girlfriend -- are what we call OR, and of no moment, and what is important is what the RSs say.


 * Also, it was inappropriate for you to conceal your deletions of RS-supported fact behind edit summaries that were misleading, and failed to reveal that you were deleting material.


 * As to Grazer's other partners or women, if the RSs have written more, feel free to reflect more. Don't delete proper RS-supported material about a fourth person.


 * As to the list -- the woman meets the criteria. The very RSs you delete reflect recognition in both the US and Vietnam. That should be obvious to you.  Do you have a POV here, that is driving you?


 * Are you the "well-known journalist" you refer to?


 * Feel free to add RS-supported text about such person, if the RSs cover her as notable.


 * As to Shafiroff, I believe a google search indicates her notability. As I wrote.  The fact that Business Week has an executive profile on her and a Wall Street Journal article is devoted to her might have suggested tp upi that it would be the case, if you only performed a wp:before search, that she has substantial coverage in RSs and therefore is notable by WP standards.


 * I can't understand your problem with the templates -- you repeatedly acted in a way for which such templates are fashioned. You deleted RS-supported text.  You repeatedly left clearly misleading edit summaries.  The templates are appropriate even for editors for whom we assume good faith.  And, you should note, that one loses that assumption -- it is only an assumption -- when they repeatedly leave misleading edit summaries as they are deleting text, and then compound matters by making misstatements. Epeefleche (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''Due to your personal attacks, as here, I would ask that you desist posting on my talkpage at all. And desist with such personal attacks anywhere. Thanks.'' Epeefleche (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Epeefleche I have NEVER made a personal attack against anyone. It is you who made personal attacks against me and after I responded on your Talk Page that I will be filing a complaint against you for your false unfounded personal attacks, you now retaliate by stating that I am making personal attacks against you and warn me that I will be blocked from Wiki?????? Fortunately, all of these communications are documented by Wiki and there is clear evidence that it was you who has vilely attacked me in response to a courteous communication. Your libelous statements that I am "the girlfriend of the subject", "the well-known journalist", or "the subject itself" are all clearly defamatory yet you are now THREATENING TO BLOCK ME because I responded to YOUR personal attacks???? I did not realize that Wikipedia was a tyrannical medium where experienced editors can make vile, false, slanderous accusations against new ones and then unilaterally block them if they had the courage to stand up to them!!! Feel free to do whatever you wish. That has clearly been your modus operandi hithertofore. Bullying, intimidating and blocking editors, so you always get your way. Rest assured that you are sealing your own fate here, as I have the resources to sue you personally and (also Wikipedia if they do not act to contain you going forward) for these libelous statements and your vile conduct against me and many, many others on Wiki, all of which I have documented. (Ceylobo (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC))


 * Blocked per WP:NLT, obviously. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)