User talk:JJakeN

April 2018


A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Breaking sticks (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Article was A10'ed, rather than G10'ed. The article was fairly well researched, and the content is probably acceptable to be merged into Scientology controversies. I would suggest to any visitors to consider the above warning as a level 1 uw-create1 notice, rather than a level 4. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  17:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This helps a lot. I also appreciate your insight in to my quality of research! Based off of the fact that my page was originally nominated for deletion as an attack page, am I at risk of losing editing editing abilities, even though that was apparently not the reason that my page was deleted? If this is the case, do you know how I should go about clearing this up to ensure that I am not at risk of losing editing abilities? Thanks. JJakeN (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Bellezza's assessment of the article, but that's just my opinion, no more valuable than theirs or anyone else's; it's not directly relevant to the question here. I didn't delete the article as an attack page because it didn't directly attack any one person in particular; G10 is designed more to protect living people from harm. So, no, you shouldn't be at risk of being blocked from editing for this one thing. That said, the article was in my opinion pretty negative in tone, and you should definitely exercise caution when posting such negative material, especially if it's directed at specific people and especially if it's not directly supported by inline references to reliable sources. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, 1 mistake doesn't get you blocked. Assume good faith is a key principle, hence there are a variety of warnings and warning levels. Of course, if you keep picking up warnings, you will end up blocked, but not much gets you insta-blocked. The sort of people that happens to are people inserting racial slurs into articles, people making legal threats and people with promotional usernames, who generally can get unblocked with a request for a username change.

In your case, there are 4 warning levels. They do not need to be moved through sequentially, although that is the norm. I wouldn't worry about it too much, but basically you're not in any danger of being blocked unless you really mess up - e.g. violating the 3 revert rule.
 * wrt Writ's above comment, the article did leave a fair bit to be desired, certainly the quality of the sources could have been better. However, it's far better researched than a lot of the crud new editors create! (I might just have gotten used to it). It sounds like we're both in agreement that the page was somewhat inappropriate, but wasn't an attack page. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  17:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)