User talk:TheOriginalSkunk

Welcome!

Hello, TheOriginalSkunk, 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 The Skunk, 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! 28bytes (talk) 16:53, 16 March 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

Speedy deletion nomination of The Skunk


A tag has been placed on The Skunk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. 28bytes (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

E-mail reply
I received your e-mail concerning the deletion of the article The Skunk. The article was properly deleted per Wikipedia's WP:A7 criteria. There was no credible assertion of any significance for this individual -- a local rap musician who has uploaded 2 demo songs on YouTube. Concerning the contents of your e-mail, I strongly suggest you read Civility and Legal before further editing on Wikipedia. Regards. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action, as you did at User talk:CactusWriter. 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. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC) You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Note: This block follows two e-mails to my Wikipedia e-mail address threatening legal action. Following my reply and warning concerning the content of the first e-mail, this edit was made to my talk page. The contents of the e-mail can be forwarded to an arbitrator. However, a look at the deleted article's text The Skunk and the section header on my talk page provide enough context for this block. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * TheOriginalSkunk, just apologize a lot and this will all go away. Sorry you had to learn the hard way. I am serious about the apologizing; you can pretty much count on not being unblocked if you argue your case in any way other than abject contriteness. You brought up the subject of legal action: read WP:LEGAL very thoroughly, which will explain WP's policy about that, with an eye to thinking about what to say in your apology.
 * However, I can argue the case.


 * CactusWriter, not that it matters because the the warning was in error anyway, but a piped link at the end of the fifth of five sentences is not much of a warning. Now, why the warning was in error:
 * WP:LEGAL Email messages are not only exempt from LEGAL, they are recommended:
 * "You should instead contact the person or people involved directly, by email or through any other contact methods the user provides."
 * Inasmuch as it is not a direct threat of clear and present legal action, a single instance of mentioning the consideration of legal action is not sufficient for a block:
 * "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved. For example, a user might assert another editor's comments are "defamatory" because they are unaware of certain policies (such as harassment, personal attacks, incivility, etc.) and require assistance in dealing with such comments. While such comments may not be per se legal threats, they may fall under the scope of the aforementioned policies and repeated or disruptive usage can result in the user being blocked."
 * Anarchangel (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anarchangel, I appreciate your desire to encourage new editors, but your note to me here shows you have misread this situation entirely. This is understandable because, not being an administrator nor a member of arbcom, you are unable to read the deleted article or the three confidential e-mails. The block was reasonable -- as agreed upon by a reviewing administrator and arbitrator at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive682. Suffice it to say, the subsequent e-mail following the block continued the same harassment and only reinforces the assessment I gave in my AN/I report. — Cactus Writer (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)