User talk:KingNothing1234

The article on Mr Cure was deleted because it did not assert notability. Having had books published by a vanity press - by a company that will print whatever they are paid to print - is not an accomplishment of note. DS (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and look here: Articles for deletion/Daniel Cure. DS (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Note
Can you prove that there's a demand for the books that doesn't come from Mr Cure himself under several false names, or from Mr Cure's friends and relatives?

I mean no offense, but we deal with that sort of garbage all the time. People who want to use Wikipedia to advertise.

As long as his stuff is published only by a Vanity Press, then it does not meet our criteria for inclusion. DS (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rejoinder
If there's anything else about a book or author, that might make a difference, but "was published by a vanity press" is not, by itself, an assertion of notability.

That aside, it certainly doesn't help that at least three different accounts trying to promote this book/author (Premierbookreviewer and Hawkeswell) all have the same Internet connection.

Please limit your editing to only one account; if you continue to use multiple accounts in this way, you will be blocked. I also suggest that you read our policy on conflict of interest. Thank you. DS (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Responding to your discussion with Dragonfly and your post on his page.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has its own internal way of reaching editorial decisions, and it's likely you may be unaware of them. So rather than assume, a brief summary follows.
 * About Wikipedia

Decisions on Wikipedia are made communally, according to a range of guidelines and policies. Those guidelines have been used for some 2.4 million articles, and countless deleted articles, over many years, so as a community we are very used to applying them.

One of the norms we have is that an article cannot just be created on anything. It must demonstrate a degree of "wider world notice" - what we call "notability". Roughly this means that enough uninvolved, independent parties have taken significant note of it, to satisfy us that it is not merely transient, is not merely promotion or advertizing, has enough sources writing about it that we can ourselves write about their views, and so on. This is quite a tough standard, as you might expect, and every week thousands of articles that "don't make it", about someone's company, band, church, school, book, song, teacher and so on, get deleted because they are not sufficiently notable to remain in Wikipedia. That is without prejudice, so if they later became much better known, we would reconsider, and routinely we do.

Another norm is, we are very careful with cases of potential self-promotion (or promotion of ones close interests). The aim of Wikipedia is to write a neutral, cited article on topics that have gained wider notability, and which convey to the reader the significant viewpoints on the topic, and their "weight" in the wider world (so far as that can be captured). This isn't to say that anyone can literally know whether or not you are closely involved in this topic. Rather, there seems to be a strong focus on it, over multiple accounts, from which such an interest seems possible.
 * About promotional activity

Unfortunately, people who want an article to exist on something connected or related to "them", only rarely care for neutrality or communal norms. So we have guidelines for editors with a strong desire to create an article for one topic or viewpoint, because they are prone to join Wikipedia, try to promote their related item, ignore warnings, and be quickly removed and blocked for disruption. As a reference website, it is very important we guard our neutrality as best we can, and for that reason we ask people in a position of trying to gain space for a subject they are deeply involved in, to actually defer to uninvolved editors to make key decisions whether an article should exist, or what it should say. That is the purpose of our conflict of interest guideline, and when you visit Wikipedia, you need to recognize that you must abide by the norms of the community, not the norms that one might be used to elsewhere. Most websites are not seeking to write neutral content as we are, so we are strict on these matters.


 * Account usage

You edit the article Daniel Cure, and a quick check of technical system information shows that two other previous editors - and  were almost certainly either you, or at best, are closely connected to you. The use of multiple accounts to press for one issue on Wikipedia in this way, is problematic, since it gives the impression that three unconnected people are interested, where in fact it is either one person, or one person and others closely connected to them. We have a policy that strictly forbids this kind of use of multiple accounts, and people can and do get blocked for ignoring it.


 * Summary

The aim of this discussion is to say that ultimately, the existance or otherwise of a Daniel Cure article, or any other, is not up to you. It's up to the community. Please respect our decision making process, and if it does not go as you wish, ask questions - but accept the decisoon. You may appeal a deletion if needed, anyone will be glad to explain how. You may do so with a single account. Please do not use other accounts, or allow others you know to do so for you. This is taken as a form of serious disruption, in this kind of case, and I hope that by advising you, you may avoid that problem.

If you have any questions, please do ask me, or any other administrator.

Best,

FT2 (Talk 20:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Update - make that 3 other socks, not two. I've also just identified user:SCDFarmer as a sock-puppet too. Note that Premierbookreviewer, SCDFarmer and Hawkeswell all sock-puppeted on Daniel Cure during April. I've blocked those three accounts, and please don't repeat.


 * Thanks,


 * FT2 (Talk 11:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Right - Update for you. As I have said, Hawkeswell was my previous username. I added KingNothing BECAUSE I WASN'T ABLE TO LOG IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not my fault - there was some problem that meant I couldnt log in. So it goes without saying that I added a new username. Do you not listen??? Okay, so we've established that. If you have the insight into these accounts that you claim, you will clearly see that I have contributed nothing via Hawkeswell since I've added KingNothing. So you are welcome to delete it! As I also said, I don't know who Premierbookreviewer is. Could be anyone. There are half a dozen people who might use the same pc as me. As for this latest one - SCDFarmer - what the hell???? IT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME!!!!!! For Gods sake this site is unbelievable. All I have wanted to do is add info and the odd article and before I know it I'm up against idiots with paranoid ideas. None of you can spell properly or understand a point of view, but you are able to make threats and ignorant judgements. If someone else has contributed to the Daniel Cure page then does it not suggest to you that people have an interest? Hm?

Will you get it into your thick skulls that I AM NOT A FUCKING SOCKPUPPET!!!!! I HAVE GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH MY TIME!!!!

Christ almighty...now what's the betting you accuse me of something else tomorrow?


 * Sorry, but I don't buy it. The evidence is very clear that the four accounts are operated by either the same person, or at absolute most, by extremely closely connected people. The claim of "nothing to do with me and I don't know them" isn't supported by technical evidence. You're welcome to ask another checkuser for a second opinion though. But what I'm seeing says the accounts breach our policy on use of multiple accounts. Nonetheless I have left this account free, going forward, to edit, and blocked the other three, so you are free to edit unhindered provided you do so within our site policies. If you want another checkuser to recheck my findings, you can find a list of them at Special:Listusers/CheckUser. Any of them will be very pleased to recheck for you.


 * For now though, please read Sock puppetry and ensure you do not breach that policy in future. That's all that's being asked. You're not hindered from editing.


 * Thanks,


 * FT2 (Talk 13:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I ran a recheck and I can confirm the results of FT2's check. There appears to be clear abuse of multiple accounts per tech evidence and topics of editing. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not breach your policy on editing in the future because I have not breached it in the past. I have read all you have to say - fine, okay, you make the rules, I dont necessarily agree with your methods, but fine, I accept your rules. But what I will say is this - do NOT bring my integrity or honesty into question. I have already said several times you are free to block Hawkeswell as it was used by myself prior to KingNothing1234 and the reason I switched was because I could not log in with Hawkeswell for some reason. What you do with the other two accounts is up to you as Ive nothing to do with them. But Whilst I appreciate that I am able to continue editing from this account, I am seriously pissed off with this notion that "you dont buy it" - and it "isn't supported by technical evidence." How the hell am I supposed to technically support my claims from my point of view? Just take my word for it and stop continuing to question my honesty as it will make me angry. It is not appreciated! Thanks