User talk:Savealine

Welcome from Bfpage
You have been blocked from editing because the purpose of this account appears to be for advertising or promotion. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by copying the text and posting it below this notice (replacing "Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;" with the reason), but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are either a sock of User:Newzealand123 or, as you have paid for her to create your article, and have made few or no other edits other than to promote yourself, I believe that you are here mainly for your own self-promotion. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to "banning" objection
You have objected to your "banning" at Wikipedia in a post at my commons talk page here. You wrote: :"...You have banned me for wrong reasons. I wrote this new page free from newzealand and can prove it with my saved documents. I posted this page on August 27 on my own, free from any newzealand involvement. Thus, I request that it be reinstated, as it is in full compliance with wiki guidelines. Savealine..."

I replied there saying that I would post here with a response. So, here it is:

I deleted the article as the creation of a blocked editor in violation of that block. I stand by that. You state that the page is free from newzealand, which I take to mean that you created apart from her. I contend that Kelly Bowring is in fact not your original work. Here is the evidence for that:


 * Originally created on 05:49, 13 August 2014 by User:Kellybowring with the edit summary: "Uploaded page that was professionally written by 3rd party" (The professional writer is User:Newzealand123). It contained:


 * "...After serving in parish youth ministry in the early 1990s, Bowring taught high school religion at Antonian College Preparatory in San Antonio from 1996 to 1998, where he was also Chair of the Theology Department and Director of Campus Ministry...."


 * "...Known for his dynamic yet understandable teaching style, Bowring has spent most of his academic career teaching in all areas of Catholic theology...."


 * "...A popular speaker, Bowring has developed, and on many occasions taught..."


 * You recreated the article on 23:26, 26 August 2014. It contained:


 * "...After serving in parish youth ministry in the early 1990s, Bowring taught high school religion at Antonian College Preparatory in San Antonio from 1996 to 1998, where he was also Chair of Theology Department and Director of Campus Ministry...."


 * "...Known for his dynamic yet understandable teaching style, Bowring has spent most of his academic career teaching in all areas of Catholic theology...."


 * "...A popular speaker, Bowring has developed and on many occasions taught ..."

Any content created by NewZealand123 and any self-promotion are not permitted. The above is promotional, and so is your website that says "ORDER NOW!", "Order CD Audio of Dr. Bowring's Overview Presentation", "Order Two Hearts Picture Sets $19.95 per set BUY NOW". I really think you are here to promote yourself. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Anna, Thank you for your response and for your points of defense. I can see how it seems the way you describe. But, the truth is that while newzealand had edited my page, only after originally being posted by me, I had the page professionally written and reviewed by one of my associates (for neutrality, not for pay), not related to newzealand. I wrote the content and had a friend make sure it was neutral. The only thing newzealand did was edit my page, and only with a very minor edit. This is the fact. I made sure the article was written in a neutral format with help from a third party, and I posted it myself. Newzealand made a minor edit, which should not have been done, given that newzealand is banned. So, after my page was deleted due to newzealand's minor involvement, I started all over again, this time making sure newzealand's edits were not included. Thus, the article is fair, given the facts, as it stands now. So, if you still think that any of my links are self-promoting, though I do not think they are so, since listing the company that publishes my books is itself a true link and source, then please allow the page to be reinstated, and for the links in question to be edited as you think best. Thanks for discussing this and assisting in the best resolution, Savealine


 * Hi, Kelly. So what you are saying is that you are Kelly Bowring who registered User:Kellybowring, then posted the article Kelly Bowring which was professionally written by a 3rd party. Then User:Peikny, a different professional, 3rd party writer, came and edited it 20 minutes later. Then you, User:Kellybowring, got blocked, You appealed the block. Another administrator declined the unblock. Then you evaded the block by registering User:Savealine and posted the article again. Does that sound right?


 * By the way, are you at all interested in helping build this encyclopedia without adding any content related to yourself? That last question is the one I'm really interested in. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As a lurker here, I have to say that there are clear violations of WP:COI and the Terms of Use ] here. The case made by Anna Frodesiak, that you are literally posting the same text posted by a highly disruptive blocked sockpuppet editor, is compelling. Seriously, what kind of "new" account is posting whole articles in their first edits?  But beyond that, the undeclared COI is against the rules and spirit of this encyclopedia. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

To answer your questions -- yes, I am Kelly Bowring who registered Kelly Bowring and posted an article "Kelly Bowring", which I was assisted by an associate (no payment) to make sure it is neutral. There is no conflict of interest... the article is objectively neutral and there is no absolute policy against posting an article about oneself as long as it is factual and sound (just frowned upon and that is why I got extra assistance to make sure the article is neutral, which it is). I do not have any idea who user Peikny is. I know that I wrongly asked user newzealand (who I found in fiverr) to make an edit soon after I posted, as I thought this would simply help my article, but I have already discussed that, and I have already made the necessary correction. I am sorry I got caught up in newzealand's mess, but my involvement was very minor, very minor. And it has been fully corrected. I registered savealine because I read on wikipedia that this is one option to move forward after a block, as long as I kept the same IP address, which I did. I then made sure that the minor edits done by user newzealand were removed, and then I posted the revised article... so that then all issues raised about this article had been properly resolved. The article was in good standing according to Wikipedia standards. Then, you Anna removed this article again because you mistakenly thought I had paid newzealand (and possibly someone else) to write and post this article, which is not the case, as I have now discussed. Yes, I plan to write and edit more articles... case in point: under my new name of savealine, I have edited several articles already. There is no COI, and Wikipedia does not have a specific rule against what I have done here with the revised article that I posted. The article is neutral and factual. I have settled the disputed questions and shown how this article is not deserving to be banned. So, please reinstate the article and my ability to edit more articles. Thank you.
 * Before we go any further, again, are you at all interested in helping build this encyclopedia without adding any content related to yourself? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Answer: Yes, I am interested in helping build this encyclopedia moving forward, as long as you acknowledge that I have resolved this issue you have raised (which I have) and this article can be rightly reinstated -- because it is objectively now in line with all Wikipedia rules/guidelines/standards. And yes, I will not add any more content related to myself. Thank you Anna for assisting me with this resolution. RE - "Logical Cowboy" -- I hope I have addressed your points as well. You are not just a lurker, but a friend of Anna's as well. She just awarded you The Barnstar of Diligence Award a few days ago. I hope that if/after my article is reinstated, that there will be no sabotaging, especially by friends of Anna. Again, I have resolved (made necessary edits) and/or adequately addressed all raised issues.


 * I'm sorry, what do you mean by "sabotaging?" It sounds like you are admitting that you were blocked and you created a new account to evade a block.  This is a violation of WP:BLOCK.  It also sounds like you are admitting that you posted an article about yourself.  This is COI.  Why do you think this is not COI?  Here is a quote from WP:COI: "Adding material that appears to advance the interests or promote the visibility of an article's author, the author's family, employer, clients, associates or business, places the author in a conflict of interest."  Surely posting an article all about yourself is advancing your own interests and promoting your own visibility.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. Here is what I have decided: No. I will not reinstate the article. I think you are here for self-promotion. I will not unprotect the article either. Plus, I will not unblock you. If another administrator sees fit to unprotect the article and/or unblock you, fine.


 * Now, I will periodically and indefinitely search Wikipedia for your website, keywords such as your name, your books that you are selling, etc., and will respond appropriately upon finding such matches. Please also understand that should your website appear in articles as references or external links, I will list it to be considered for blacklisting. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Savealine responds on August 28: To Anna: I am only asking you a question -- Do you think it is ethical to use, draw assistance from, or freely allow friends of yours to give biased negative opinions, which are clearly one-sided, to support your negative judgments of other Wiki-users? And even more especially when my defense has been so sound?

On the wiki page that discusses deleted pages, it states about reinstating them: "Please refrain from resubmitting exactly the same article without making the appropriate changes." Fact: I made all the appropriate changes to the article, according to the reasons you gave for why this article was banned, as I have established. Thus, I properly reinstated it. The issue here was newzealand. That was the main stated issue in the original deletion reasoning. I have made all appropriate changes in this regard. At the end of the day, this is the fact.

To Logical Cowboy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography states: "Writing autobiographies is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and there are many pitfalls." Fact: It is not prohibited to write an autobiography, only discouraged. It is clear that autobiographies are potentially but not always COI, and that Wikipedia does not ban them outright. I know this and have made sure my article is neutral, as I have already discussed and the article itself demonstrates. Possible or potential COI does not allow a lurker and friend of the banning administrator to automatically conclude the article is COI. There is no grounding for your accusation. And your involvement in this issue is in question, for already stated reasons.

About my concern about future "sabotage" of my article: By requesting that there be no "sabotaging" of my article, I simply was asking you Anna to protect the integrity of Wikipedia and fair practice standards, which up to now I had confidence you would do, for both of our sakes. But, your last response leaves me with the impression, one I hope you will not disregard but will prove otherwise, that you have taken my comments personally as an offense and have now retaliated with emotion and personal feelings involved. But, I never meant to offend you, but was simply calling for your vigilant help to maintain future integrity in regard to my article. I simply expressed my concern about "Logical Cowboy"'s involvement here and possibly in the future. Is this not fair and reasonable? I hope you will see this. Fact: The fact remains that this article is now in good standing in every regard as to Wikipedia.

I have established with you that I intend to continue adhering to all Wiki standards including not self-promoting and have the intention to be a helpful editor to this encyclopedia. Wiki states that this means that my account should be un-banned. You know this, as you asked me about this very point earlier, but have now declared that you will not unblock me... not due to wiki standards, but due to my questioning you about the questionable involvement of your friends to side with you against me.

Finally, I changed my user name (with new account on same IP address) because it seemed to me Wikipedia recommended I not use my real name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Real_names "Consider carefully before creating an account in your real name, or a nickname which might be traced to you, as these increase the potential for harassment, especially if you edit in controversial subject areas. While it is possible to rename your account later (see Changing your username below), a record of your previous username remains permanently... User accounts with few or no edits might not be renamed, as it is quicker and easier to simply create a new account." This is what I did and why I did it. I am new to Wikipedia and did not know it was ill-advised to use my real full name until after I made an account. So, with Wikipedia's good advice, I changed my user name and kept my same IP address. I am still learning how to do these things the right/best way, and am open to guidance.

Again, all my actions are in line with Wikipedia (or have been fully resolved to that effect), and my article is as well. Please reinstate my article and clear my good name, which is the right course here. Do the right thing and we can all move forward with the integrity that Wikipedia deserves from each of us. Thank you for your continued dialogue and consideration toward a fair resolve.


 * That is too long to read. I think you are here purely for self-promotion. Again, if another administrator sees fit to unprotect the article and/or unblock you, fine. See the brown box above for unblock instructions.


 * A summary for other administrators:


 * User:Savealine says he is Kelly Bowring of this website. He registered User:Kellybowring, then created article Kelly Bowring with the edit summary "Uploaded page that was professionally written by 3rd party". Then User:Peikny, a different professional, 3rd party writer, came and edited it 20 minutes later. Then User:Kellybowring got blocked, appealed the block, and another administrator declined the unblock. User:Kellybowring evaded the block by registering User:Savealine and recreated the article. Third time deleted and salted by me. (Paid User:Peikny is blocked for not declaring and operating a huge sockfarm.)


 * Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Savealine on August 28 says: Foul play, Anna.

To all other administrators: Do not just read the summary... the deceptive practices of the administrator are in the details of the dialogue here. Read the details above and it will be clear.

I have copied this page and will be filing a grievance and incident report against Anna Frodesiak and her friend/associate the lurker Logical Cowboy.

To Anna's last response above, where she stated: "too long to read": Wiki states that this phrase is "used as a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing." Sad that she has resorted to this, especially given that my statements are succinct and specifically address each of the concerns raised by the two administrators involved, and even more importantly raises concerns of possible clear violations of wikipedia by both of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Friday/Admin_abuse states my point: "Many editors complain that [on wikipedia many] admins do whatever the hell they want while the 'regular editors' are held to the rules."

Anna shows herself to have a double standard here (see also her newzealand investigation, where she also uses/allows her co-conspirator and scheming associate 'Logical Cowboy' to do her dirty work)... first, wrongfully accusing me and holding me to her version of the higher standard, while clearly misusing her status/position to bully her way into winning, despite the facts of innocence, and while getting her friends to support her, and even resorting to unmerited threats of future retaliation against me.

Further, Anna brought in or allowed "Logical Cowboy", who I have proved was not an "uninvolved" editor/lurker to use one-sided and biased accusations against me to shore up her own false assumptions, even after I defended my points with facts. Clear COI, "bad faith" adminship, and breach of basic wiki policies. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators

It is all discussed in detail above.