User talk:Connieshaw

Copyright issue with Beatrice Bruteau
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Beatrice Bruteau, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.sentientpublications.com/authors/b_bruteau.php. As a copyright violation, Beatrice Bruteau appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Beatrice Bruteau has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Beatrice Bruteau and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Beatrice Bruteau with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Beatrice Bruteau.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.

In fact, the language that you placed in her bio article is worthless here, since its point of view is the assumption that her philosophical beliefs are accurate and useful, while WP articles must take a neutral point of view. That text would make good source material for a "stub" bio on her, but would need drastic rewording, by someone who understands its jargon but is willing and able to state her ideas in a way that recognizes the value of considering the fact that she holds them as something separable from whether they involve any value or truth; for that purpose, we have no need of a copy of such a text as part of WP: any of the many URLs for pages that already contain it would suffice as information for an editor who would take the article in an acceptable direction. Thanks. --Jerzy•t 07:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The same copyright-violation issues are the reason for the deletions of Brent Cameron, Steven Harrison, and Barbara Meyer, and the rest of your initiations of bios remain to be reviewed. --Jerzy•t 14:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adrianne Ahern
Hello Connieshaw,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Adrianne Ahern for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was previously deleted by a consensus decision.

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. Thanks, heather walls (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Adrianne Ahern
Hello, Connieshaw,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Adrianne Ahern should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Adrianne Ahern.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, heather walls (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Connieshaw, as you can see in the area you commented on my talk page, the speedy deletion was denied. Later it was found that Adrianne Ahern did not have any reliable secondary sources to meet the Wikipedia:General Notability Guidelines. I looked for some and couldn't find any. You can start the article again at Articles for creation, it will take more time but once it passes there is little danger of it being deleted. You can also come ask questions at the Teahouse. Regards, heather walls (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sentient Publications
Do you work for Sentient Publications? Your purpose here appears to be to promote Sentient authors, regardless of their notability. Please read WP:COI, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK and WP:ADVERT. I think that most of your edits, per Wikipedia policies, should be deleted. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Alice Matzkin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 23:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Proposed deletion of Diane G. Wilson


The article Diane G. Wilson has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Refs in the article come from Wilson and thus are not reliable nor independent. I'm unable to find any refs that are about her, only just quotes in articles.  There needs to be refs about her per WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

At it again, are you?
Why didn't you reply to my question above? You're an employee of Sentient Publications, here to promote the non-notable books of its non-notable authors. You are in violation of WP:COI and WP:ADVERT. If you keep it up, you are headed for a block for disruptive editing. You recently created Linda Weber, Diane G. Wilson, and Alice Matzkin, among many, many others. Well, this is not going to stand. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service for you to promote your non-notable writers. If Sentient Publications wants to do that, let it pay for publicity through the usual routes. Qworty (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm an infrequent Wikipedia contributor so it can take me a while to see that I have a message. I'm the owner of Sentient Publications. We have over 80 authors represented in our catalog; I've submitted 11 that I think are worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. Of those it looks like 5 or 6 have been accepted at this point, so someone at Wikipedia must think they meet the standards. Also, a number of Sentient authors have been written up by people not connected to Sentient Publications and those articles have been accepted. The people I am submitting are leaders in their fields who have done far more of note than to write a book. Of course, you are free to disagree, but I would appreciate it if you could do so in a civil manner. I'm not trying to do anything prohibited by Wikipedia as I understand it and I have read the rules. I've attempted to write about these people in a neutral manner and have provided outside sources.Connieshaw (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly advise you to thoroughly read WP:COI and stop creating WP:ADVERT in violation of our policies. Please note that just because you write a promotional article and it's been standing for a couple of weeks does not mean that Wikipedia has "accepted" your topic as "notable."  All it means is that nobody has evaluated your promotional article yet, and so you've temporarily gotten away with trying to promote your commercial enterprise.  You are here for no other purpose than to make money by using Wikipedia to sell books.  This goes completely against the guidelines I've directed you to, and I cannot emphasize strongly enough that if you keep it up, you are headed not only for a block, but perhaps even public embarrassment.  Believe me, I have seen it happen here hundreds of times.  The fact that you have gotten away with contributing WP:SPAM for a number of years indicates that you do not understand how WP:RS works--you should read that policy thoroughly as well.  Also, are you this other promotional account for Sentient products ?  If so, please read WP:SOCK, another potential pitfall that could lead to your blocking and public embarrassment.  Please be advised that unsourced, poorly sourced, and spammed materials can be deleted by any editor at any time.  If I were you, I would recuse myself from now on from promoting any of my products on Wikipedia.  Believe me:  The Wikipedia community will absolutely not stand for it, and they will come down on you very, very, very hard if WP:CONSENSUS is required regarding your multiple policy violations. Qworty (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I am not Anyuan. I do not have any alias account, just my own. And could you possibly be any more rude? I suppose you could, having read a few of your comments on other articles. As long as we're citing Wikipedia chapter and verse here, what about "People new to Wikipedia may be unfamiliar with policy and conventions. Please do not bite the newcomers. If someone does something against custom, assume it was an unwitting mistake. You should politely and gently point out their mistake, reference the relevant policy/guideline/help pages, and suggest a better approach." You'd do well to learn a little politeness. You make me want to have nothing further to do with Wikipedia, which I assume is your goal.Connieshaw (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were going to retreat behind WP:BITE in order to claim newcomer status, when you've been pushing your promotional edits here for over five and a half years . Approximately how many years were you planning to wait before you started following Wikipedia policies against promoting your own company? Qworty (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm and rudeness is obviously fun for you but harmful to Wikipedia and completely unneccesary. By assuming evil intent by contributors all you are doing is maintaining your role as petty tyrant and enforcer of guidelines that are by no means so clear cut as to be free from interpretation, but you seem to think that only your interpretation could be correct. The contributor who does not make Wikipedia the focus of their life has to try to figure out what "notable" really means by looking at what articles are included. So if obscure indie bands, like say, Ataloss, are accorded "notable" status, then why isn't an artist who has two paintings hanging in the Smithsonian and one that was commissioned by the White House? Since you deleted that article, then you tell me. You may say that Ataloss will at some point be deemed unworthy, but the fact that an article, no matter how long it has been included, can be deleted at any time on the whim of someone like you, does not help new contributors figure out what is acceptable. And yes, I consider myself new in that I submitted a few articles five years ago and a few more this month, all of which you have now deleted. It may be that all of those articles would be considered to be about non-notable people by Wikipedia editors with less of chip on their shoulder than you, but show me the clear guidelines that indicate what is notable and what is not. Without such guidelines, this whole process would appear to be quite subjective. And nowhere do I see any prohibition against a contributor writing an article about someone whom the contributor is connected to or has material interest in. My guess is that it happens often. It seems, however, to have made you quite angry that I have done so. Perhaps there needs to be such a prohibition clearly spelled out if that is indeed what the rules are.Connieshaw (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for writing. The existence of an article about the band Attaloss does not give you the right to promote your company on Wikipedia.  Attaloss is an example of WP:OTHERCRAP.  On Wikipedia, you can't argue for an article's inclusion by pointing out that some other article exists.  Also, I did not delete any of the articles about your company's products.  I am not an admin and have no power to delete articles.  Some of your articles were speedily deleted by admins, while others were redirected.  I know that Wikipedia policies can seem confusing, but here's a good rule of thumb: WP:42.  Like all Wikipedia editors, you would be better served trying to locate WP:RS for articles that are not related in any way to your company.  If, instead, you continue on your present course, you will quickly find that the most unpopular people on Wikipedia are the WP:SPA folks who are self-righteously trying to use Wikipedia as a free web-hosting service in order to feature their commercial products so they can turn a buck.  You are headed for a block if you keep it up.  Thank you, and have a nice day.  Qworty (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Diane G. Wilson listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Diane G. Wilson. Since you had some involvement with the Diane G. Wilson redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).  DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Draft:Alice Matzkin concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Alice Matzkin, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)