User talk:NealZaslavsky

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! - A l is o n  ❤ 06:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

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 may also click on the signature button 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. --SineBot (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the first REAL suggestions I've gotten! NealZaslavsky (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC) --NealZaslavsky (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Veinor (talk to me) 06:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Veinor (talk to me) 06:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD templates
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Veinor (talk to me) 06:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there
Hi there NealZaslavsky

You seem like a real nice guy so I thought I'd drop by and send a note. I see you're relatively new to Wikipedia, so perhaps a couple of pointers would be helpful.

Wikipedia is governed by policies and procedures, just like any other bureaucracy. These procedures enforced by the community, with a little help from administrators now and again.

It also has tons of guidelines, essays, and other precedent. It may take a while to get familiar with some of these before a new editor can be sure that what he or she is doing will be accepted by the community.

A couple of important items to call your attention to are:


 * WP:V: Wikipedia's verifiability policy.
 * WP:N: Wikipedia's notability guideline.
 * WP:COI: Wikipedia's behavioral guideline on conflict of interest.
 * WP:NPOV: Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view.
 * WP:PEACOCK: Wikipedia's style guideline on POV inherent in words.

Experienced editors are supposed to be reasonably nice to newbies. In fact there's a whole behavioral guideline on it at WP:BITE. But that doesn't mean it's inappropriate to identify problems articles, or to point out problems on users' talk pages.

Have a good day! Bongo  matic  06:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no talkback or other comment on my talk page is required.

THANKS. I AM A NICE GUY :-)  I wish I could say the same thing about certain "editors."  I don't know what their levels of experience are, but I can say for certain that their comportment does not even come close to the "reasonably nice" standard you've indicated.

If we were in a courtroom, I'd eviscerate them and their fallacious suppositions. And I can tell by the limited interactions that none of them would play well in front of the person in a black robe or 12 "average citizens."

If there are improvements that can be made to the page in question, I'm open to constructive suggestions.

And while I will never throw the first punch, nor will I turn the other cheek once it has been thrown at me.

It is the repugnant, vicious and malignant conduct of those certain "editors" which must cease. --NealZaslavsky (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

 * And after that wonderfully polite comment above, you are blocked indefinitely for repeated attacks, incivility, and disruption of deletion processes. You may appeal this block with . Please note that abusive requests will not be reviewed and may result in the protection of this page. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 06:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.


 * All that I have done is restore the links to the Articles for Deletion page on top of Neal Zaslavsky that you removed, which is explicitly forbidden as indicated both in the comments in the code itself. You then proceeded to attack me by calling me a 'nasty, vicious, self-important and unhelpful self-appointed "editor"' despite the fact that I have been nothing if not civil with you. While I admit that I could perhaps have given more constructive criticism, this is in no way an excuse to call my actions "repugnant, vicious and malignant" for a simple oversight on my behalf. Veinor (talk to me) 06:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, NealZaslavsky, I notice your new article has been nominated for deletion. Your best option here is to go to Articles for deletion/Neal Zaslavsky and weigh in over there with your rationale for having it kept. You've been reported for vandalism and may get blocked, but this isn't the way to do things (update: Oops - too late. If you can understand why this has happened you can request unblocking with the unblock template and another admin can review the case and possibly unblock your account) - A l is o n  ❤ 06:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison. I think that there are a couple of folks whose editing privileges should be nominated for deletion!! +	--NealZaslavsky (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, NealZaslavsky - can we leave the templates in for a short while, so people can understand what's going on here. I'll comment some more in a minute - A l is o n  ❤ 06:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I could add a couple more links that you might wish to be aware of:
 * WP:NPA is Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks.
 * WP:AGF is a behavioral guideline that requires editors assume the good faith of other editors.
 * WP:NLT is Wikipedia's policy against legal threats.
 * We're all "self-appointed" here&mdash;even you.
 * I nominated what appears to be your autobiography for deletion not because you're not a great guy (assuming good faith, I'm sure you are!), but because it doesn't appear to meet the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rather than insult other editors, the only recourse you have is to convince other editors that the subject (you!) does meet the criteria for inclusion. That's why I've pointed to you WP:N (I'll also point you to WP:BIO, which is the guideline specifically for people). The Articles for Deletion process lasts seven whole days!!! So there's no nead to rush and scream at everyone like the world's about to end. Rather, sit back, pop open a brewski, and read the applicable policies and guidelines, and then marshal the relevant facts to make your arguments. That's how a legal eagle such as your self would prepare for any other form of dispute resolution, isn't it? Not by yelling at the other party or the judge or the other party's lawyers or the bailiff or the courthouse parking attendant, RIGHT?!?!?!
 * Regards, 06:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok - firstly, you were never really welcomed here and don't really seem to know all the rules for editing Wikipedia. I've added a 'welcome' note above, primarily to show you links to the usual FAQ and editing rules. One of the problems you've encountered is that you cannot just write an article on just anyone. They need to show notability for them to be allowed to stick around. If the subject isn't visibly notable, someone will slap a notice on it, requesting it be deleted (as happened). Unfortunately, one of the second rules is that you don't remove that notice - called an "AfD template". What happens is that a page is created - in this case, Articles for deletion/Neal Zaslavsky - and editors, including yourself, are invited to discuss it there and you get a chance to argue for its being kept. These things usually take a week, then an uninvolved admin comes along and interprets the result. Unfortunately one of the other rules states that you should not make personal attacks on other editors, and you also appear to have waded right on in there, too :) However, you can be unblocked if you address these concerns and agree to take the right approach - A l is o n  ❤ 06:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh
Well, the main thing was that you were removing AFD tags instead of discussing them. The editors that warned you didn't throw the first punch, as they were just kind notices reminding you not to delete AFD tags. Netalarm  talk  06:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that primarily came out of frustration at his article being AfD'd and his lack of knowledge of the rules. He's only new here, and got bit hard on his first outing - A l is o n  ❤ 06:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but what sort of confuses me is that he received warnings to stop removing the tags. Netalarm   talk  06:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was a 'heat of the moment' thing as all the removals happened within a 10-minute period - A l is o n  ❤ 06:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... makes sense. By the way, Neal, I'm not picking on you here. It's just that this case particularly interests me as I'm taking part in Requests_for_comment/new_users, which is looking into if there's any problem in how we treat new users. Something clearly went wrong here, so I'd like to bring this up at the RfC. Netalarm   talk  06:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He points to the problem below - basically, he got slapped with boilerplate warnings, escalating in an AfD3. He then lashed out in frustration and anger, then got blocked. Plastering templates on a talk page can sometimes be seen as 'graffiti' to a new editor. BTW - once the messages started flying on his talk page, it would have been better if one of us experienced folks had taken the time to welcome him here, as the welcome template also explains the very issues that he'd been running up against - A l is o n  ❤ 06:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Alison, you are correct
Bottom line is they attacked me, continued to attack me, and offered no constructive suggestions.

If you want to communicate something, it will generally be better received if you send a clearly articulated note, rather than spray-painting a message on the side of a building. Most will respond to graffiti with a new coat of paint to remove the aethetically offensive message (regardless of its content) They not only spray-painted on my wall, but made some rather unflattering and unhelpful remarks.

In the spirit of "good faith," since they believe that they have all acted in good faith, my wish for them is that everyone they ever encounter for the rest of their lives treat them EXACTLY as they have treated me. :-) --NealZaslavsky (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What attacks are you referring to? Netalarm   talk  06:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The attacks I believe you are referring to are warnings. These are boilerplate messages intended to let you know that the edits you are making are not acceptable, and need to stop. Many of these warnings provide links where you can find more information about whatever the problem was. You were blocked because you continued to attack others in spite of these warnings. Does this help at all? Hers fold  (t/a/c) 06:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Hersfold--at I am not certain that any is due at this point--your "belief" that my reference to attacks mistakenly refers to boilerplate warnings is severely misguided. You attacked me. You continue to attack me. Continue to treat others in life as you have treated me, and I can guarantee you that you will not lead a life of happiness. --NealZaslavsky (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Neal, I don't believe these people meant to appear as 'attacking' you. I know it can certainly appear rude when someone just lands up and slaps a template on your page with a big red STOP' graphic in the middle, without taking the time to explain what was going on. Things can get pretty hectic around here and people like Veinor and Hersfold are incredibly busy at all times. I know both of these editors for years now on here, and I don't believe any of them really meant to attack you - A l is o n  ❤ 07:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * your "belief" that my reference to attacks mistakenly refers to boilerplate warnings is severely misguided
 * You're confusing me... those were the only messages you received prior to this discussion that is ongoing. Netalarm   talk  07:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that his article was targeted with an AfD was seen by him to be a personal attack, especially as it appears to be his own BLP - A l is o n  ❤ 07:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Netalarm, I think that any reasonable person standing accused of puffery and the like would be insulted and would believe that they were the victim of an ad hominem attack--NealZaslavsky (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... the concern of the editors was that your article did not fit the notability guidelines. This is in no way an attack on your character or you as a person. There are guidelines on what may be included in an encyclopedia, and in this case an editor deemed the acceptability questionable, which is why a discussion was started. Netalarm   talk  07:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your analysis, Netalarm, fails to address the fundamental concerns I've raised. This is much more about HOW things were communicated. If someone had questions about the content of the bio, they could ask. Do they want to see certificates of appointment and/or election for the multiple public offices I have held? Do they want the personal phone number to a Secretariat of Supreme Court Justice in Argentina to confirm my judicial externship? Certificates of commendation? The dozens of articles? The countless television appearances? Minutes of public meetings? FCCP filings? Were they questioning the veracity of any of the statements? Or were they just acting like they had their collective panties in a bunch? Do you see how your fellow editors woefully inadequate and pejorative communications caused this whole problem?--NealZaslavsky (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's tricky, but people actually do want to see evidence of notability. There are rules for all that, too, as ever :/ For biographies, links to newspaper articles, book references, etc usually suffice. Often when a biography is created and when it's just a 'stub', people nominate it for deletion. This doesn't mean it will be immediately erased; you have a week to address the issues they bring up. People get to work adding references, tidying up the article, adding quotes, etc. Basically, the editor community gets to make the call on it, and you also have input into that and can state your case. Unfortunately, being blocked, you can't do that right now, and the discussion for deleting the article is already running. Dozens of biographical articles are created every hour and not all of them get to make it. Indeed, some of them are deleted on the spot. Yours hasn't been, so you still have a fair chance to have it kept. You can also have it moved into your own userspace, and can work on it in private until it's ready for prime-time - A l is o n  ❤ 07:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And you will notice, Alison, that I started posting links dating back to 1992. And if requested, I would have continued posting more links. Or faxed/e-mailed documents. Or done what was reasonably requested of me if the request survived a fair benefit-burden analysis. But as you saw, Hersford, Veinor and their comrades made no attempts to actually solicit information in a meaningful manner which is reasonably forseeable that it would actually elicit meaningful and useful information.--NealZaslavsky (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The lack of sources was why the AfD was brought up. Perhaps you should read Autobiography too. Netalarm   talk  08:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's kinda not really their job, Neal. What they did was well within the rules here, and is generally what happens. What you were doing was the correct approach, just keep adding links and inline references. You still had plenty of time to get the article together, too, but declaring war over the deletion tags was your downfall. It seems awfully unfair, especially as you were still working on it at the time, but that's kinda how it works around here. My suggestion right now is 1) declare that the legal threat is rescinded 2) read up on the guidelines here (including Netalarm's link above - you need to be careful when writing your own biography, if you are) and 3) request unblock to address your article and the AfD. If you can do all that, I'll even unblock your account myself and try to get you through the process of editing, etc - A l is o n  ❤ 08:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison. There is no legal threat to rescind, either by the accepted definition of a "threat" under California law or even the more restrictive definition that Hersford claims that Wikipedia employs. As such, there is no threat to rescind. However, while I certainly reserve all of my rights in law and equity, and do not specifically waive any of my rights in law or equity, I can safely declare that any "threat" is rescinded (although it is a factual nullity, since there was no threat and therefore nothing to rescind.) Second, I didn't declare war. I was viciously attacked by someone who wanted to play a game of "unzip and let's see whose is bigger" and so I responded accordingly. And since I've already requested an unblock which was summarily denied without good cause, not sure how we deal with #3 above. If you'd like to work with me on editing the document and providing some specific advice, I'd appreciate it. I'm always willing to learn. What I'm not willing to do is allow the Hersfords of the world carte blanche to mistreat me because of some perceived "power" they think that they have.--NealZaslavsky (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear about the legal threats. That's now over and done with, thanks :) As for 3) - don't worry about that. I'm also an admin and am allowed unblock if needs be, with caveats. Yes, I'll help with your article though I'll need a whole lot of sleep first! I don't know what to do about part 2). Hersfold was doing his job and meant well for the project. I don't think he was getting into a 'dick size comparison' game, if you'll pardon. It may have seemed that way as he deals with dozens of admin issues concurrently. Can we agree that if unblocked, you not get into a 'respond in kind' situation? If needs be, and if someone is hassling you, you can come to me or to another admin and we can try to intervene. This work for you? - A l is o n  ❤ 08:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

UNBLOCK
The conduct that led to the block was the thin skin and horrible and unfounded misinterpretation by someone who was hellbent to continuing his pattern of mistreating me. As such, there was nothing further for me to address, Abecedare--NealZaslavsky (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock request until editor indicates willingness and ability to comply with WP policies, procedures, and behavioral guidelines. Bongo  matic  07:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Neal. Hersfold tells me that you emailed him with a legal threat. Is this correct? Because, unfortunately, if it is, we won't unblock your account as long as the threat stands. There's a link here to explain why it needs to be that way. Can I suggest maybe taking a break for a few hours or a day, maybe, then coming back here and discuss things again? I'll still be here, don't worry - A l is o n  ❤ 07:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alison, Hersfold needs to chill out. I didn't threaten him. I don't threaten people. Not only would it violate the code of ethics I am legally required to uphold, but it would be counterproductive. As I said to Hersfold, I take appropriate action when that action is appropriate. Period. That's not a threat--it is a credo.--NealZaslavsky (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi NealZaslavsky. You are digging yourself into an ever-deepening hole. A number of editors have tried to show you where to learn about how things are done here, and all you do is keep on yelling at people. Despite the array of templates and warning messages, this isn't really that complicated a place if you bother to understand how it works. You have chosen to interpret the good faith actions of other editors as attacks, and even in your unblock request refer to other editors as "misguided" and "offending". I don't see any record of personal attacks against you on your talk page, or any inappropriate maintenance templates. The only words could have been taken as offensive were in one single edit summary. The rest is standard language that refers directly to policy and guideline&mdash;something you'd learn if you read some of the links other editors have referred you to.
 * If you want to get unblocked, you need to get with the program, agree to get a clue as to how article creation, editing, and deletion work, understand what is meant by consensus and cooperation, and withdraw any legal threats you may have made.
 * If you disagree with maintenance tags, deletion nominations, comments, or edits to articles, there are ways of addressing them that are customary here. If you don't want to work in that manner, you will find yourself unable to edit permanently. Bongo  matic  07:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Neal, can you explain, then, why you felt it appropriate to say: "And I'd be willing to fly out to Maryland and file an appropriate action in a court of competent jurisdiction to show you what real power is." As far as I can tell, that is a threat to come see me in person and file a lawsuit. For what, I've no idea. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 07:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you that if I were to fly to Baltimore, it would likely be for the soft-shell crab. Baltimore has the best soft-shell crab in the world. When I had clients in DC, I used to drive up there just to put on a bib, grab a can of Old Bay Seasoning and a wooden hammer, throw down some newspaper, and order a bucket of Extra Large Males. --NealZaslavsky (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Abecedare has declined your unblock request, primarily due to your legal threats. This doesn't mean you can't try unblock again - you have a limited number of shots - but you'll not be unblocked until you unequivocally rescind those threats here. They're just the rules, I'm afraid. Abecedare is just another random admin and has little choice but to decline here - A l is o n  ❤ 07:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alison, there have been no threats made, legal or otherwise. Please let me know how you define a threat. Are you asking me to voluntarily waive certain rights I have in law and equity? And do you realize that even if I were to do so, it would be a worthless waiver, because there are some rights which simply cannot be waived in advance? I'm confused.--NealZaslavsky (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, legal threats are considered to be any statement that either expressly states or otherwise infers that you intend to pursue legal action against another person. For several reasons, outlined at WP:NLT, these are not permitted and editors who make such statements are blocked indefinitely until they are unambigously retracted. We are not saying you must waive any rights you may have; if you feel legal action is necessary, you are free to do so as long as you do not involve Wikipedia or make reference to the legal action on Wikipedia in any way. The NLT page I linked to above has more information for you. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 08:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, legal threats are considered to be any statement that either expressly states or otherwise infers that you intend to pursue legal action against another person. Since nothing I said demonstrated any intent to pursue legal action, by your own definition, no threat was made. At best, I expressed a reservation of rights. That is far different from making a threat or demonstrating any intent. Rather, a reservation of rights is pretty much a default position. A right not waived is reserved. Waivers of rights cannot contravene public policy.--NealZaslavsky (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, to clarify: you have no intent to pursue legal action against anyone here, yes? - A l is o n  ❤ 08:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your clarification is correct, Alison. While I reserve all rights, I have absolutely no present intent to pursue any form of legal action against any administrator/editor or similar person associated with Wikipedia, nor have I ever had the intent to pursue any form of legal action against any similarly situated person or thing.--NealZaslavsky (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good! :) That's pretty clear and unequivocal, I'd say. It's nearly 2am where I am, but can you agree not to remove the AfD tags again, and vow to refrain from personal attacks if at all possible? If so, that's probably good enough for unblock, and you can have a go at fixing and rescuing your article - A l is o n  ❤ 08:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and one of the important pages you should read is WP:AGF - the directive to 'assume good faith' on the part of your fellow-editors. The project basically runs on that one, and it's a sort of golden rule - A l is o n  ❤ 08:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's almost 2am here as well... we're both in California. I'm amenable to refraining from initiating any personal attacks. I can't promise that I won't respond appropriately if one is launched at me--but I will try to view each statement through the good faith filter. I've got a lot on my plate for the next couple of days, but will try to find some time to further edit the article. If you don't mind, I'll work on it off-line and run any questions by you since you have a specific expertise in the area of autobiographical articles. Thanks in advance.--NealZaslavsky (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so. That's about as good as it gets for any of us, really, and we all do our best with the 'good faith filter', as you say. No point in going to sleep with a blocked account hanging over you. From all your comments here, and especially re. your comments about the legal threats, I'm going for unblock now. And Hersfold, by the way, agrees to let me unblock. He's not the worst - honest :) - A l is o n  ❤ 08:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)