User talk:JnMalin

April 2010
for. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. The original complaint was made here at the 3RR noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Malin 13:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My evidence that you are adding links to a Wikipedia article that does not exist is this edit, which changes a redirect to a disambiguation page which points to (a) the page that was redirected to, and (b) a page that does not exist, and no other pages, and this edit, in which you restore that inappropriate edit. Your only other edit is this edit, which adds a link to a Wikipedia article that does not exist to Coffee Party USA.  When you claim that I am lying, you should remember that all of your edits are available for anyone to review- you have never made an edit to an article that didn't include a broken link to the nonexistent article Real coffee party. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't realize that the article had existed- sorry about that. I wouldn't say that's not your fault, though, except in that you perhaps weren't familiar with the notability criteria yet.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Malin 12:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing and blocks
DarkHorseSki/JnMalin: You were blocked for edit warring to insert content about "real coffee party" into Wikipedia article space, and further blocked for using a second account (whether operated by a second person or not) to continue those edits. Please note that it doesn't matter whether you are editing existing Wikipedia articles, or articles newly created by you — repeated insertion into Wikipedia of non-sourced or poorly sourced material is against policy. Repeatedly making those same edits without first resolving disagreements with other editors is edit warring, and will frequently result in blocks.

Regarding your repeated "Unblock Requests", it is not helping when you continually make uncivil comments about other editors, implying they are violating "Wiki-Etiquette"; teaming up against you; have an "agenda"; or are making false statements. Commenting on other editors is generally discouraged on Wikipedia, and may even have adverse effects when done in the context of an unblock request. It is far more productive to acknowledge why you were blocked, and formulate a solution to prevent it from happening again.

As for the "real coffee party" content specifically, the article you created was deleted because it does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Anyone can create a website or a facebook page and start a group or "organization", but that doesn't qualify it as suitable for a Wikipedia article. You may create an article about the topic after it has been specifically covered in reliable sources such as reputable news publications. "Real coffee party" lacks that coverage and notability. Inserting content about perceived "controversies" or "confusion" into articles is also inappropriate, unless reliable sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking have first described these controversies and confusion. Your edits, rather than being reliably sourced to reputable, third-party sources, merely cited links to organization websites — and that is why they were removed. I hope that helps clear things up for you. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * DarkHorseSki/JnMalin: It is not unreasonable to take some time to research and pull together the required level of references to establish notability, before you create the new article. So now that you have had some time, please provide those references to reputable published sources here. Let's see them. Show that "Real coffee party" meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for its own article. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not to be used to advance the notability of non-notable groups. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That might be true, but given that the very article that started this controversy didn't start that way, it seems quite hypocritical to require that of me. This was the first page I was setting up and I was addressing the concerns as quickly as they were being raised.  For my part, I thought that my opening references were far better than that at some of the other pages I quickly reviewed to see how things were setup.  And I don't know why you are bothering Jon about this, he thought the founders of the Real Coffee Party should have created the Wiki page.  I thought I could at least get the stub going with all the easily available information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JnMalin (talk • contribs) 18:38, 14 April 2010


 * Incorrect. I went over this with you on your other page, here, but I will explain it again. The Coffee Party USA Wikipedia article was started with a citation to a reliable source, an article about it in The Washington Post, in the very first edit.  You can examine that first edit here. The Coffee Party USA is a notable subject covered in several major newspapers and magazines.  The "Real coffee party" is not notable; it is not covered in major publications, so the article you created about it was deleted.  You've been asked for almost five days now to provide the required reliable sourcing, and you still have not done so.  Now I am through trying to help you.
 * As for your latest edit summary: (countering the hypocrisy of Xenophrenic) — You've been previously advised against making uncivil remarks about editors. This will be the last time that I request that you cease the personal attacks. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Jnmalin, if you wish to edit Wikipedia again, you are expected to follow our policies. What Xenophrenic has said above is pretty much the same as what any Wikipedia administrator would say. Don't assume you can create the article on Real coffee party again without providing mainstream sources. At the moment, it looks like you are trying to use Wikipedia as a source of free publicity. If major newspapers have already commented on Real coffee party, then find those references, and your work is done. Facebook is not an acceptable source for use on Wikipedia, and the existence of a page on Facebook does not prove notability. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was working to get those sources added. There are TV and Radio show entries to add.  Those entries were what I was trying to add when I got cut off.  I've looked at LOTS of other pages of several different types of topics, and the speed by which I was going to add such notable references was going to be far faster than several of those.  Clearly there is no requirement that such references be available from minute one because the histories of the pages here demonstrate such is not the case.  Just because you don't like the Real Coffee Party, that doesn't mean you should not have afforded me the same amount of time to build up the page and references that topics you do like or don't care about get.
 * If you don't express willingness to follow our sourcing policies, your block may be extended to indefinite. Now that you've engaged in inappropriate promotion, any future work you do here will be scrutinized for high-quality sources: assuming that you are allowed to continue at all. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are basing your request for unblocking on your claim that the "real coffee party" is a notable organization, and that you can demonstrate that with reliable, independent sources. The reason no one has accepted or declined your unblock request is because you have not yet cited those sources here on your talk page. It has been more than 24 hours, so any administrator reviewing this request may well decide that the sources probably don't exist, decline your request, and lock your talk page from further edits. If the sources on which you're basing your request really do exist, this is your last opportunity to share them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because this isn't the place for it. They belong on the page.  I'll be adding them once the block expires and in the mean time I've saved the old page (thankfully cached by Google) so I can quickly fix the mistakes you have made.  If you are so interested they are easy enough to google, you'll find the syndicated TV and radio shows pretty easily as well as the youtube archive of the shows.Jennifer Malin 16:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right; google searches are easy to do. I love Google News, which lets me focus my search on reliable sources, like newspapers, television news show archives, and similar.  This is what I found when I searched Google News for "real coffee party."  You haven't said anything so far that makes me think you might really have sources; I think that if you did, you would have shared them a long time ago.  Maybe I'm wrong; if I am, it would be so easy to prove me wrong that I'm not sure why you've decided not to do it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)