User talk:Dowinket

Nomination of ExposedVocals for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ExposedVocals 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/ExposedVocals 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. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page ExposedVocals has been reverted. Your edit here to ExposedVocals was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.twitter.com/exposedvocals) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: 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.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sock puppet report
I'm taking this out of the Articles for discussion thread, because it is irrelevant to that discussion. You have been accused of sock puppetry, which is a Wikipedia term for operating more than one account for illicit purposes. In general, each user is only supposed to have a single account. There are exceptions for legitimate reasons, but if the accounts are created solely for the purpose of creating a false impression of consensus at any particular discussion, than the creation and use of these accounts amounts to a violation of the Wikipedia terms of service. The newly created accounts are blocked permanently, and the creator is generally blocked for a period of time depending on how egregious the transgression was. The administrator who investigates the case has special tools available to him to determine whether multiple users are, in fact, the same person.

In your case, I suspect this will not be the case, and you will be exonerated. I suspect that the new users who have arrived to the defense of your ExposedVocals article are users of the service who have seen (either here at Wikipedia, or on Facebook, or on the website itself, or anywhere else for that matter) that the article is nominated for deletion, and don't want that to happen. Noble sentiment, but since they're not discussing the point in relationship to Wikipedia policies, but merely saying "I like this site. Therefore we should keep this article," (a discredited argument in articles for deletion discussion), their inputs have no impact on the final outcome of the discussion, and serve only as a distraction. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I appreciate that and the last think I want is for there to be a distraction during this discussion. I appreciate your willingness to see this from a level headed perspective. Dowinket (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't
... air your grievances about the Wikipedia process within the article itself. Remember: The first rule of Wikipedia is we don't talk about Wikipedia. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC) This says result=keep ? Does that mean that this discussion resulted in a Keep? or am I reading this wrong? Thanks in advance. Additionally, if that is the case; where do we go from here? Dowinket (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been blocked from contributing on my own article deletion page.. what do you expect me to do? This is not fair and my hands are tied.
 * The AFD page has been locked to prevent input from non-autoconfirmed users (i.e. the raft of unregistered or newly registered users who have come to express their opinion). This was done so that the page could be kept to an on-point discussion of the merits of the article with respect to applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies, things that unregistered or newly registered users are not expected to fully understand.  The fact that you have been swept up in this block is unfortunate, but your voice has already been heard at the discussion, so no further input is really needed.  What is needed now is for those among the community who have more experience in the policies and guidelines to evaluate the subject (ExposedVocals) in light of those policies and guidelines.  Any attempts on your part to sully the waters with improper postings on the article itself will just put you in an ever more unfavorable light.  Author's intentions should not have an impact on the deciding administrator's deliberations (we should be evaluating the content, not the creator), but it would be best not to do anything to bias the community against you.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thank you for the feedback.Dowinket (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Excuse my ignorance, but I have a question and I'm not sure where or how to ask. I noticed an AFD message
 * !-- For administrator use only: --*
 * That is a comment that is created as part of the automated deletion nomination process. I have no idea why.  However, the discussion is still very much alive.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments at AFD
Your arguments at Articles for deletion/ExposedVocals indicate that you are trying to promote ExposedVocals, building up its visibility so that people who need the service can find it. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Remember, Wikipedia is not a directory. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I look at Wikipedia as a source of information and I am trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Deleting this article is unhelpful in the least. Dowinket (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)