User talk:Katya Foster

Welcome!

Hello, Katya Foster, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

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 New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, 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! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT


The article FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable product produced by a company of no apparent note.

While all 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. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT 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/FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Foster is a well respected company in the natural gas and oil industry. I am not connected to the Foster family and only called myself Katya_Foster because I am using this account solely to create a page for Foster. They are a competitor of Platts and a contributor to congress (who reads the Foster Natural Gas/Oil report on a weekly basis) This is the company website: http://www.foster-fa.com/. Why is Platts allowed to have a page on wikipedia and Foster is not?
 * If your sole purpose here is to write about Foster, you may have a conflict of interest. In any case, since the article has been nominated for deletion, the place to add any thoughts on the deletion or retention of the article is at Articles for deletion/FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Making pleas at Talk:FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT will do no good. Since the article has been nominated for deletion, the discussion about its deletion or retention will take place at Articles for deletion/FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT. If you wish to have your voice heard in the discussion, click on that link and make your comments there. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not making pleas. You flagged a legitimate article which you had no right to flag. You yourself state that you know nothing about the oil industry and are making your judgements based on google. You say you didnt find our company on google? How carefully did you look? I need this page running tomorrow. Please help me. I understand that you cannot undo what you did, but please speak to other editors or get people to vote this page as ligitimate so that it can work and get the attention it deservs. If Platts can have a page on wikipedia so can Foster. Otherwise, its not fair.
 * Posting any reasons to keep the article on Talk:FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT will not influence the article being kept or not. Whatever you want to say to encourage people to support keeping the article, you should post at Articles for deletion/FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FOSTER_NATURAL_GAS/OIL_REPORT&action=history page history]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please feel free to repost your comments, but without deleting anybody else's there. Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When you made this edit, you replaced the discussion, rather than adding to it. If you would like to express your opinion, add it to the end of the discussion so that the entire discussion can be seen by all.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of OIL REPORT


Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 03:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Email an editor
You can anonymously email an editor by going to their talk page and using the "Email this user" menu entry on the lower left side. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion over
I have fixed all the issues about references in the article and closed the debate of the oil report. Greg  Heffley   21:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

All the information on the page is wrong. It needs to be deleted. Bad page. Lets keep wikipedia clean. This is my explanation

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. The material appears to be sourced - if you have issues with specific statements, provide sources that correct the material - and/or discuss the issues on the article talk page.--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report, you may be blocked from editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As was pointed out to you at Articles for deletion/FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT - db-g7 is no longer applicable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not vandalising. I made a page which I now want to delete. I read wikipedia rules which state that as I wrote most of it, I have the right to do this. So you have no right to block me. You are the one vandalizing the page. --Katya Foster (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)--Katya Foster (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Other editors have made substantive edits to improve the page. When you added the initial content, your edits were released under Wikipedia's site license - at which point others were free to re-use that content and to update the article from that point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? What where these edits. Please be specific.--Katya Foster (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The "history" tab on the article shows all edits. A comparison of the version from your last constructive edit to the point where you addempted to blank content can be see in this link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

All the information about the report was given by me. No one knew about it till I came along. This is not called constructive edits. Adding commas and moving stuff around till it makes no sence is not called editing. I still own all rights to this page. You are making up rules and you know it. --Katya Foster (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Every time you edited that article, or any other other article for that matter, text above and below the "Save" button said:"By clicking the 'Save Page' button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. ... If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."You have no ownership of the article, and cannot dictate what does and doesn't happen to it. All decisions about content on Wikipedia are made by discussion between editors, who attempt to arrive at a consensus, which is then the controlling authority until such time as a new consensus, as the result of a new discussion, comes about. You have a voice in those discussions, of course, but you have no veto, and no special authority -- but your familiarity with the subject should give you an advantage in attempting to convince other editors to agree with you. If these conditions are not something that you can work with, then I strongly suggest that you do not edit on Wikipedia, because that's the way it's going to be wherever you go on this site.  If you understand those conditions, and can live with them, then you're welcome to keep contributing -- but do not try to assert ownership by blanking an article again, such behavior will ultimately get you blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, it's certainly possible that other editors, who are not as familiar with the subject matter as you are, may have gotten things wrong in the article as it now stands. If that is the case, the thing to do is to post on the article's talk page, explaining point by point what is wrong, and providing evidence to support your contentions.  Just note that nothing will happen if you go there and expect everyone to jump and do what you say simply because you say it -- you have to convince others that you are right, and the only way to do that is to provide the evidence necessary to sway them.  That probably sounds like a hassle, but that's the way it is, that's the way things work here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report‎. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Offer for help
It appears that you have created an article on Wikipedia without first reading the fine print. That's typical for most of us, so no worries there. Now you're caught up in processes that can trip up even experienced editors. This is bound to get more rather than less confusing over the short run. To that end, if there's anything I can do to help answer questions you may have about what's happening and why, please post them here, and I'll do my best. Rklawton (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In reply to your e-mail...
 * 1) People experienced with Wikipedia understand that no one editor "owns" or is responsible for the content of any article. As a result, it's unlikely anyone would hold you accountable for the article's current state. If anyone wanted to see the precise nature of your contributions to an article, they can do so by checking the article's edit history. This feature is available to everyone.
 * 2) I see you are blocked from editing temporarily. If you like, just post a note below outlining problems with the article, and I'll take a look and let you know what I think might be done.
 * 3) Deletion - so far as I can see this report exists, but there's no indication that it's notable insofar as such reports go. That is to say, the sources provided in the article do not indicate that this is an industry leader. As a result, I'll go ahead and "prod" the article. That is, I'll propose that we automatically delete it in a week or so if no one can come up with sources indicate that this report is worthy of an article in Wikipedia. Hope this helps, Rklawton (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see this article has already survived an AfD, so there isn't much I can do except offer to help improve the article's quality. Rklawton (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sockpuppetry, see Sockpuppet investigations/Katya Foster. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexandria  (talk)  18:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Foster Natural Gas Report, you may be blocked from editing. See also sections (including the Gas/Oil Portal) are there for similar'' articles/organizations. Removal by an editor with extreme WP:COI can lead to a block'' ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your editing shows that you continue to have major conflict of interest. Your attempts to WP:OWN an article, even blanking out a standard Wikipedia portal twice shows that perhaps you either should not be editing Wikipedia, or should be prevented from editing the article on Fosters Oil and Gas Report.  I would rather not block you for disrupting the article and obvious WP:PROMO. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 00:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to invite you to please stop threatening me and to stop your rude and agressive behavior. It is unprofessional and childish. If you do not agree with my edits you can explain your opninion in a CALM and CIVILIZED manner. Threatening to block people without any cause or explanation goes against all wikipedia rules. --Katya Foster (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm childish. I tried to explain calmly and rationally, you continued on.  Check that chip on your shoulder at the door, please. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: you are affiliated with the article. Removing "competitors" is therefore a breach of WP:COI, especially twice, and I politely warned you not to do it.  I also politely suggested that in order to make yourself look like less of an WP:SPA, that you edit the other two articles in question, and add the Foster report to them in See also sections ... just like what was on the Foster article.  That would have showed some very positive things.  When someone's trying to help you, don't insult them. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not insulting you. I did not understand that you were trying to help. I thank you for that and appologize if I had offended you. However, by this point I am afraid to edit anything because EVERYTHING I do gets undone. Not by you. By other people. Thank you and I am sorry for the misunderstanding --Katya Foster (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't give up hope. I've warned Beyond My Ken that his/her behavior is not appropriate, and I'll take further action if it persists. Rklawton (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to e-mail
I do not reply to Wikipedia e-mails. However I do read them. Without giving away your request, let me say that I agree with you. Rklawton (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help and kind words. I am glad that there are people like you on wikipedia :) --Katya Foster (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)