User talk:DPRichard2013

Welcome!
Hello, DPRichard2013, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as From The Fields, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! red dogsix (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of From The Fields


The article From The Fields has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable book. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK.

While all constructive 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. red dogsix (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I have cited every possible citation that can be found regarding this real, actual book that exists on the internet. The fact that this book PASSED a very stringent editorial review by the Stanislaus County Library and has been placed in its Special Collections section, that it has been written about in the local newspaper, Turlock Journal, and is available on Amazon & B&N and has been stocked in the Modesto B&N actual store on McHenry Blvd should be more than enough to satisfy and reasonable and logical review.

04:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of From The Fields for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article From The Fields is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/From The Fields until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. red dogsix (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I have cited every possible citation that can be found regarding this real, actual book that exists on the internet. The fact that this book PASSED a very stringent editorial review by the Stanislaus County Library and has been placed in its Special Collections section, that it has been written about in the local newspaper, Turlock Journal, and is available on Amazon & B&N and has been stocked in the Modesto B&N actual store on McHenry Blvd should be more than enough to satisfy and reasonable and logical review.

Nomination of Richard Paolinelli for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Paolinelli is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Richard Paolinelli until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. red dogsix (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't an ideal block notice, but Wikipedia lacks a good block notice for someone who has a username that implies heavily that they're another person. Here's why I blocked you:
 * First off, you claimed here that you aren't the author, yet a search for your username brought up a web article that has the author's email listed, which is nearly identical to your username. If you're not Paolinelli then you need to tell us what your conflict of interest is in this situation. All COI must be clearly stated up front for transparency's sake. You don't have to give us your full name and history, but you are required to at least disclose what your relation is in this situation. What made this so suspicious is that your edits otherwise give off the impression that you are the author and that you're trying to hide this. Wikipedia discourages editing with a COI, but it's not forbidden. Not disclosing it, especially after concerns have been voiced, is.
 * You also made some rather uncivil comments towards another editor who expressed concern over the article's sources. That's really, REALLY inappropriate, as it is an WP:ADHOMINEM attack against the other editor. This is not allowed on Wikipedia and any unblock will come with the requirement that you be more civil to your other editors. The deletion of a page or the nomination of a page for deletion doesn't mean that Wikipedia is a bad place or that anyone is insulting anyone.
 * Some of the content you wrote was kind of promotional. Posting a link to a book's Amazon page in the external links section is seen as unacceptable on Wikipedia because it's inherently promotional. The whole point of Amazon is to sell you something. The page for the author also contained phrases like "returned to his first love", which is the type of stuff that you see on marketing press releases. The rest of the article isn't bad, but it does read an awful lot like the type of thing you see written up by a PR person. This wouldn't have been as much of a big deal if not for the incivility and the fact that your username gives off the strong impression that you're the author here to promote his work.
 * So here's the requirements for an unblock:
 * You must disclose your conflict of interest. This is not an option. Please be aware that I do think that you have a direct COI in this situation and you'd have to do some serious convincing to show myself or other admins otherwise.
 * You must be civil to other editors. This is also not an option. No insulting people or accusing them of insulting others because they question an article's notability.
 * You must try to avoid writing things or including content that can be seen as promotional. I'd recommend going through one of the training pages at WP:TRAINING or WP:ADVENTURE.
 * If the pages for Paolinelli are deleted, you must not re-add them. I would also recommend that you give us an example of what you will do editing-wise if you are unblocked.
 * If you are not Paolinelli and are not a family member with these initials, you must change your username. Having a username that implies that you are someone else (IE, a living person) is not allowed on Wikipedia because it's seen as impersonation.
 * If you can satisfy these requirements, you may be unblocked. To any incoming admins, I'm aware that the block notice isn't ideal, but it seemed to be the best thing in this situation since the user claims that they're not the author and it doesn't really fall under the famous person impersonation guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

How very Nazi of you to block me. Tell you what. Find one single stated fact in either article that is untrue and I won't say a word if you delete them. Just one sweetie, just one. Then again, goons like you don't really care about the truth, now do you? So I guess what I am saying to the entire Wikipedia gestapo, is do GFY.

FYI, I spoke to Richard about what is happening here and he wasn't surprised. He asked me to relay a request. After you delete the articles that I posted he does not want Wikipedia to ever allow his name or any of his works to be posted anywhere on Wikipedia and will file a federal lawsuit to have any such future references removed should you refuse his request.

Consider this a legal cease and desist letter.

BTW, I won't be back, so any of your pithy replies will only be shared by your ilk. Neither Richard nor I, David Paul Richard, Class of 2013, (there's your fucking e-mail address explanation), will ever soil our computer screens with your pathetic website again.

````

Judging by the notability of your "Friend", I am surprised if someone will ever recreate the article. Also no legal threats. Or any threats fo that matter. Clubjustin (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that he's the IP that vandalized my userpage a few days ago, so I'm going to give you a few notes since it looks like you are checking back up on Wikipedia:
 * First off, the article was deleted due to a lack of notability, not whether or not they are false. Something can be factual and still fail notability guidelines.
 * Whether or not the article is recreated isn't entirely up to the author because if the person grows notable enough (ala J.K. Rowling) then any wish for article deletion would be declined. However as Clubjustin commented, it's unlikely at this point that the article will be recreated.
 * Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia - it's considered a blockable offense even if you weren't already blocked. (WP:NOLEGALTHREATS)
 * Do not make personal attacks. Not only is this not well received and a blockable offense on its own, but it makes it very difficult for you to ever seek an unblock. It also makes the author look really, REALLY bad by extension. (WP:NPA)
 * At no point did you previously state who you were in relation to the author and if you'd posted this up front or simply explained this rather than calling me Nazi-esque, that likely wouldn't have been a huge-huge problem. However take into consideration that with Wikipedia we have to take things on face value. What I saw here was someone with a username that is nearly identical to a handle the author uses, yet claims that they're not the author. In the majority of cases on Wikipedia these usernames were chosen to imitate a person's name, sometimes maliciously but usually because they wanted to pick a username that reflected on the person they wanted to write about.
 * Please avoid using profanity. Wikipedia isn't censored but there's no need for hostility or language.
 * I want to emphasize that you really, really need to refrain from attacking people in relation to the author. You might not be him, but your edits can reflect on the author and your comments here can make it seem like the author told you to be verbally abusive towards me on Wikipedia, or at least condoned it. This almost always backfires, especially if someone is an indie or self-published author, and readers tend to not want to read or purchase things by people that they think will be verbally abusive if they react a certain way. In some cases author and fan behavior has ended up attracting a lot of negative attention in the book blogging community, essentially crucifying the author's career. I can't emphasize enough that what you're doing right now is probably one of the worst possible things you can do. This might be Wikipedia, but I don't want you to act this way on Goodreads, Amazon, or any book blogging website. (Good grief, please don't do this on Goodreads. They'd eat you and the author alive.)
 * Now since you were abusive and there's little chance that you'll behave in any other manner, I'm taking away your talk page access. I honestly don't think you are interested in getting unblocked and even if you were, your chances of getting unblocked are slim to none at this point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

<div class="notice" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)