User talk:Paulydee

Help me!
Please help me with...Constant deletion of parts of a page that are not vandalism.

Paulydee (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Paulydee, can you provide links to which pages you're referring to so we can better assist you? There's a quick tutorial here on how to add links if you need help. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 02:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, here is a link to the page I am asking about: Osgoode Hall Law School

Thanks, Paulydee.Paulydee (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Paulydee, I reviewed the changes you mentioned, and while not vandalism, they were still removed by TheRedPenOfDoom for legitimate reasons. Specifically, some had undue weight attached to them, and others were not given a proper source in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. You're more than welcome to contribute content, just about anyone is, just be aware that you must back-up your contributions with sources showing that that information is indeed valid, among other things. I would suggest you check out the Wikipedia Teahouse, where you can learn more about contributing to Wikipedia in accordance with the policies and guidelines. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 03:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi again Paulydee. In response to the message you left on my page, this kind of confusion is exactly the reason that all pages on Wikipedia have talk pages associated with them. I would suggest starting a section on the article's talk page so that you, TheRedPenOfDoom, and others can reach a consensus with regards to the content of the page. This is a key tenet of Wikipedia Dispute Resolution as shown under the Discussion section. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 03:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When there is inappropriate content in an article there are multiple options to deal with it. One is to tag it. One is to remove it. Given the history of single purpose accounts whose goal is to turn the OH article into an advertisement, I opted for the removal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello RegistryKey and redpen: a) whatever history you (redpen) think you perceive that bothers you is irrelevant to how you should treat what was on that page, b) if additions to a page have a positive effect on the perception of the subject matter, that doesn't make them an advertisement, c) there was nothing inappropriate (or inaccurate) on that page, d) several parts of wikipedia guidance suggest that you should NOT delete content that is verifiable and that the proper behavior would be to improve the article by contributing rather than deleting, e) it specifically states in the wikipedia dispute resolution guide that you should NOT delete salvageable text, f) there is still no response regarding the fact that redpen unilaterally deletes huge chunks of pages including the history: where is that history and why does redpen apparently think s/he owns it? g) why is redpen's anti-social behavior going unaddressed and relatedly why has no one proposed some sort of constructive solution whereby the material is salvaged with citations and/or in some other page? h) Finally, I should add that not only does going on the 'talk' section of a subject page never seem to amount to anything (the posts are often totally unaddressed) but this situation is already well beyond that of arriving at any CONSENSUS since redpen has simply hijacked the page, disappeared the previous history and the salvageable text and added something inaccurate without a citation. This has all taken place without any attempt at resolving the problem in the interests of building wikipedia and all with apparent impunity within the wikipedia 'consensus' community. Why is this considered acceptable? Paulydee (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Paulydee. If you feel your concern has not been properly addressed you can always elevate it to a Dispute Resolution or a Request for Mediation. I would highly advise you though to read the procedures behind such requests first. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 19:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

my "problem"
My "problem" is with a long string of single purpose accounts blatantly and over a sustained time period inappropriately attempting to utilize Wikipedia as a free webhost for promoting OH. I will continue to implement basic content policy on that article particularly any promotional content. If you want edits to stay, you WILL NEED to provide citations to reliably published sources

(please also read WP:NPA) --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am unclear as to why you think working to preserve Wikipedia policies of WP:NOT and WP:NPOV would in any way be considered inappropriate behavior or motivation, but in any instance, you need to stop right now making personal attacks. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Osgoode Hall Law School
I haven't researched the Osgoode Hall Law School issue in detail. However, I can see that it isn't true that any material has been deleted from the record. At least two other editors have told you that nothing has been deleted from the record. Material that you added to the article has been deleted, but the old versions of the pages are still available. I will again advise you to see WP:Page History. In special situations, either of two procedures, known as revision deletion, more accurately known as redaction, or oversight, more accurately known as suppression, can be used, in the first case by administrators, in the second case by a special class of administrators known as oversighters. These procedures are basically only used for material that never should have been added at all, such as hate speech, libel, threats, described in more detail in the appropriate sections. This has not been done. What has happened is that edits that you have made have been deleted, apparently for lack of sourcing. You have a right to discuss the deletion of those edits, either on user talk pages, or preferably at Talk: Osgoode Hall Law School. If that discussion fails, you have the right to request moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard, as you did. However, making a request that makes incorrect statements (such as that material has been hidden from the record) is not helpful and is likely to alienate other editors. Before pursuing this content dispute, please read Wikipedia policies and learn how Wikipedia works. We know that Wikipedia is complicated in some ways. You need to understand that it is complicated, and that you won't get your way just by making demands that contain good-faith serious misstatements of fact. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Robert McClenon, I'm afraid I don't fully agree with your take on this matter. You seem to be unwilling to address my initial query about preferring tagging over deletion and I went to some lengths to explain why it appears to be a valid position. If I am mistaken about the hiding of the history that is one issue and one made in good faith so I am not sure why you have focused on that alone as though it weighs on the issue of the deletion. If someone is alienated because I mistakenly thought the history was deleted and I am corrected then why should their continued alienation be valid and play any role in an objective decision about the disagreement? You need only prove to me that I was mistaken in thinking part of the history was gone. I'm quite happy to have that mistake clarified. Curiously though, there is no mention of the fact that I tried to compromise with redpen (who is obsessed with total deletion for what reason?) by creating a separate page of osgoode hall people and specifically stated that everyone on the list was notable and that i was going to begin working on the citations, yet I now see that it too has been deleted. Why? This is, again, contrary to the wikipedia guidelines about 'Trying to fix a problem' and the repeated guidelines about tagging and NOT deleting. I have been quite reasonable but for some reason am met with no response to my argument, no attempt at compromise or any kind of assistance, and now a second total deletion even though I specifically said in the 'list of osgoode people' talk page that I was going to begin building the citations and that everyone was notable. The fact that I might have been mistaken about the hidden history is not central to the issue but the choice to repeatedly delete rather than tag or contribute actually is. What's your response to that? I am assuming you are acting in total good faith right? I thought compromise was part of the wikipedia guidelines but you seem to be telling me that it's not since you looked into this matter extensively.Paulydee (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I now understand what you are saying, maybe. It appears that you wanted to have your material left in the article, but tagged, and that he wanted to remove it.  The use of content tags is sometimes necessary, but is undesirable.  The purpose of tags is to indicate that an article needs fixing.  It is better to fix an article and remove the tags, and that is what TPROD did.  If you disagree with his removal of your content, it is encouraged to discuss on the talk page.  I assume that you were just completely mistaken in good faith in claiming that your edits had been completely removed from the record; however, given how Wikipedia works, that claim has a specific meaning, so some of us really assumed that you meant that your edits had been redacted.  You say that you want compromise.  In that case, discuss on the talk page.  You still appear to be making demands, such as that your additions be left in the article with a tag, when tagging is always a second-best to fixing.  Again, please try familiarizing yourself with the policies and guidelines rather than lashing out, complaining, and making good-faith but unreasonable demands.  I know that you mean well, but being angry because you don't understand doesn't help.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice Robert McClenon, I will probably add something to the talk page. However, (this is in good faith for the purpose of clarification about the disagreement, not a personal attack), I want to point out that redpen has already stated that he is motivated to delete the list because he doesn't like 'single purpose accounts' whose effect is to promote that law school. If that is what is motivating him then I think it's only fair to ask whether his application of the rules for this page is truly objective. I also think (and I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong) this might be a question that is much more contentious than you suggest. When I read the Try to Fix the Problem guidelines I don't find that it should be interpreted to favor deletion after tagging and I also don't understand why my proposal to leave things up tagged while I build the citations is not valid. From what I have read the guidelines propose that fixing by adding text, re-wording, improving formatting, adding citations or adding reliable sources to existing citations is what is recommended. I do not understand 'fixing' after something has been tagged as deletion but I am not saying you are wrong. I should add that since I proposed that things be tagged while I work on building the citations they weren't going to be left up tagged and uncited forever. Pretty much everything in that list was indisputably 'notable' and verifiable based on reliable sources that are already present in wikipedia pages for the individual items and which, should those pages disappear, can be found online. A few potentially contentious items may well also have passed the test. The wikipedia guidelines state that if something that is verifiable is lacking citations then an editor should add the citations themselves rather than deleting the item. So again, and I'm not lashing out at you, I don't think the guidelines actually support redpen's choice. It's not about being angry, it's just about wondering whether the rules are really being applied properly and, if not, asking that they be better applied. Perhaps I seem angry, and yes I am a bit frustrated and do not find that most people have provided satisfying responses to my position, but given that such a perception is articulated about me I think I can be permitted to suggest that redpen also appears to have been quite angry on several occasions during this disagreement. Should that be taken into account? I don't know, I'm just throwing it out there for your consideration. In the meantime, I think I would like some sort of neutral 3rd party dispute resolution about this issue because I find the rules and guidelines to be somewhat unclear and if anything, to support my position that an editor should be improving the OH page by adding citations (and to go ahead and tag them in the meantime) rather than deleting a list of notable people with easily verifiable reliable sources. I should also add that I don't believe OH is technically the faculty of law at York University, as far as I understand it is a law school that pre-existed that university and then affiliated with it but remains somewhat separate and is governed differently than a regular faculty at that university. Redpen altered that and I can't really see why. Is it cited? Should I revert it? If I revert it I am guessing I will be barred from editing...but what about redpen? Finally, I need to mention that I am pretty sure (again, this is in good faith) that in the past after citations were improved, redpen simply moved on to another reason to delete items from that page, such as 'notability' (which I have now discovered was totally incorrect because they actually are all notable) and then 'reliable sources', which as far as I can tell is also incorrect as grounds for removing the items in question. I believe this to have happened so if I'm wrong it's a good faith mistake. I cannot help but wonder what the explanation is for this choice of editing. Short of other explanations it is impossible for the possibility of bad faith abuse of technicalities not to cross one's mind, especially when redpen already stated that he chose deletion among several options because of a history of 'single purpose accounts'. That said, I operate on the assumption that redpen and others are applying what they think are the best interpretations of the guidelines and am not suggesting otherwise. However, I still don't find that a real justification for redpen's position has been articulated and I find it odd that redpen's deletions are presumptively supported while my position is taken as incorrect even though people have clearly made mistakes in telling me why (I don't think OrangeMike's third party opinion was soundly arrived at regarding notability). So I think I will ask for some sort of neutral dispute resolution. Do you have any other suggestions? Thanks again, I appreciate your input. Paulydee (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately WP:TLDR. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert McClenon, basically I said that I think the guidelines might suggest a different interpretation about deletion as a way to fix a page and that this situation also seems addressed by the guideline stating that, rather than deletion, an editor should add the citations if everything is notable and easily verifiable, which is largely the case with the list deleted by redpen.Paulydee (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon btw, I think your phrasing about my 'lashing out' and 'complaining' because I 'don't understand' is a bit rude. I haven't lashed out at anyone, I've been trying to clarify why deletion is not warranted and I think I explained my position already based on the wiki guidelines that as far as I can tell I understand quite well. I also think I understand those of 'notability' which I was told was grounds for the deletion by someone else but is in fact a blatant mistake in relation to virtually everything on the deleted list. Please feel free to read my above post.Paulydee (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rosa Marchitelli, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CBC and Rob Brown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of University of Calgary people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green Party of Alberta. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Osgoode Hall Law School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Scott. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Osgoode Hall Law School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chief Electoral Officer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green Party of Alberta. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Philip Fleishman
 * added a link pointing to Peabody


 * University of Calgary
 * added a link pointing to OC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Osgoode Hall Law School. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

re: Paul Erik You appear to be taking sides by giving me a warning rather than addressing the fact that someone else is repeatedly violating the page. The rule of reverting obviously makes no sense when applied in isolation. Please notify the admins about the repeated violation of that page by the ip address listed in the history, thanks.
 * I have not taken sides in this dispute, which is the very reason I placed the same warning on the IP's talk page that I placed on yours. Both of you are in violation of Wikipedia's policies on edit warring. Please take a moment to read WP:EW, for example at the end of the first paragraph: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defence. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC) Good, and thank you. In the meantime I assume the appropriate revert will be left up, rather than imposing edit bans that leave up the wrong one.Paulydee (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lisa Silver
Hello, Paulydee. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Lisa Silver, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Philip Fleishman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philip Fleishman 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/Philip Fleishman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)