User talk:GroundRisk

Speedy deletion nomination of Civilization Jihad
Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Ratzd&#39;mishukribo (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you watching the article Civilization Jihad?
The article was recently nominated for deletion through WP:PROD and the concern was:"'The entire article is based on Islamophobic books wich are using conspiracy and fringe theories to back their arguments. Patrick Sookhdeo's books are unanimously criticized by scholars, in August 2011, the Center for American Progress produced a report, entitled, 'Fear, Inc.' The 129-page report listed Emerson as one of five 'scholars' who act as 'misinformation experts' to 'generate the false facts and materials' that are then used by politicians and pundits to create a climate of fear, more of these 'scholars' are used as a 'source'. This article is also written very biased and not from a neutral perspective. The term Civilization Jihad is made up by these men and doesn't have a academic value.'"

I, for my own reasons, objected. I may not always be there. You should also check out the page WP:OFFENSE. In short, Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored. It means editors here ought to not remove material solely because it may seem offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable to some readers. However, this does not mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. Others may not inform when they have nominated that page for deletion. Seeing, that the page is very controversial I won't expect such courtesy if I were you. Watch-listing (just add the title "Civilization Jihad" to the page and "update watchlist" to watch the page) is a nifty way to keep track of the pages. Check your watchlist regularly. See also: Notability guidelines, cheers. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 18:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for saving the page. Also thank you for the advice, much appreciated. GroundRisk (talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of Civilization Jihad


A tag has been placed on Civilization Jihad, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. No offense, but your page is total crap & it really needs to go IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is most definitely not my first page on wikipedia. The subject manner and the article is well researched and it seems you are the :::only one who has a problem with it. But thank you for your kind input. GroundRisk (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Who said that this page was your "first page on wikipedia"? Have you been publishing Wikipedia articles under another username? If you look at the talk page for the article in question, you'll also see quite clearly that I'm not "the only one who has a problem with it".  Guy1890 (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I did wikipedia work years ago and no I do not have multiple accounts. That would be a blatant violation of Wiki guidelines. "first page of wikipedia" was referring to the little box on the right of my page.GroundRisk (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Civilization Jihad for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Civilization Jihad 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/Civilization Jihad 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. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Civilization Jihad


A tag has been placed on Civilization Jihad, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It is an "attack page", and appears to be primarily intended to disparage or threaten its subject. This includes biographies of living people that are unsourced and entirely negative in tone. (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks; attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:GroundRisk/sandbox
User:GroundRisk/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GroundRisk/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:GroundRisk/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see my response on the talk page on the article and continue your discussion there.

GroundRisk (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please let the MFD run its course
GroundRisk - please let the active MFD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GroundRisk/sandbox run its course to allow others to comment on the nature of your userspace draft. It is inapprorpiate at this time to move the draft to the main article space when the userspace draft itself is being discussed for deletion. 7 23:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I do apologize for that. It was mistake. GroundRisk (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Baloney. Your recreation of a page that had been recently speedily deleted was no "accident". Regardless of what anyone thinks of the page in question, at least be honest about what you've been up to with it recently.  You simply didn't like the way that it was recently deleted, so you intentionally recreated the page again. Guy1890 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

To clarify this situation: Are you now agreeing that this page can be deleted? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The speedy delete if you click on it goes to an archive section and it said not to be deleted or edited and any further discussion on the topic should be at the talk page of the article. And this page has been up since last November and NOT deleted. It was tagged but people contested the speedy deletion. Up until someone deleted it randomly last week, the page had been a collaborative effort. But last week a user came in and deleted it without any discussion on the matter. I didn't check Wikipedia for like three days so I missed it and couldn't save the page. I went into wiki chat and discussed the situation with an wiki admin and that user put the latest version that had been deleted in my sandbox so I could fix what I needed to fix (get rid of some of the sources in question) and then put the page back up. So no, we are not agreeing this page should be deleted. If you would like to improve or fix the article, do so- add a contradictory section for all I care-but this page merits existence.

GroundRisk (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
By the way, you are aware that sockpuppetry is disallowed, right? I recommend that you immediately cease using your CeceliaXIV sock before you dig yourself even deeper with this naked agenda-based and policy-violating editing. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "policy-violating editing" - what policies are getting violated exactly? Do you have any concrete proof that he is using a sock? If yes then kindly file WP:SPI. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhh, the two accounts' editing of each others' sandboxes, if nothing else, is a pretty good clue that something fishy is going on with at least one of them. If GroundRisk stops using the sock account, then no immediate action will be required and it will serve only as a black mark on his character should his poor behavior around "Civilization Jihad" lead to further sanction, but if he uses it again, I'll file an SPI. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't get scared
I sincerely don't believe anything Roscelese says or attempts to justify. That Article should have been WP:AFDed not WP:CSDed, period. Also read what I wrote on User talk:GroundRisk/sandbox. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Pay heed to Smokeyjoe's well-intentioned advise. WP:NPOV in a nutshell: "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.". Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I will, thank you. GroundRisk (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

One little thing
I saw your comment here. I just wanted to caution you (since I have faced that predicament myself) that your detractors will accuse you of canvassing, hence use common sense. However, while asking somebody to monitor an issue, actively refrain from asking them to comment or remark in any shape or form which makes it sound as though you are trying to influence the outcome of a discussion to one direction or the other by asking your buddies to gather around and vote. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point. I didn't realize this. Thank you and I will be careful next time. GroundRisk (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/GroundRisk. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Socking and actions
I've blocked as a sockpuppet of yours. I encourage you to closely read Sock puppetry before you edit using any other accounts, or you will find yourself blocked long-term. I've noticed from your various comments that you seem to believe admin actions taken against you are as a result of people disagreeing with your content edits. That is not the case. I couldn't care less about the topic areas you're editing. I do care about upholding Wikipedia policies and I will continue to take actions against you if I see you violating Sock puppetry or any other policies. You are welcome to edit in a non-disruptive way using only this account. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Seriously, this is not my account. This is ridiculous.