User talk:AGenuineFelixLeiter

Welcome

Hello, Bondgirlbook, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you have edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been reverted for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of deletion, you might like to draft your article before submission, then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing.

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! You can also just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Fences&Windows 14:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Bondgirlbook

A tag has been placed on User:Bondgirlbook, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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 hangon 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. WuhWuzDat 14:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I object to the marked deletion of the proposed contribution in question for the reasons stated below. I encourage editors to review the proposed contribution, as it a draft and the intent has been for it to remain a draft at this time, to make the article better. Thank you.

As a preliminary matter, this page is entirely objective in tone and manner. Its sole purpose is to describe the information that is encompassed within a forthcoming book. It does NOT take any position about that information, and it does NOT advocate purchase of the book. It identifies the author and indicates areas in which that author has previously published. The entirety of the article is fact-based. Furthermore, this page should not be deleted because it is not intended to go "live" at this time. This is an article that is in-progress and is intended as such. Therefore, the article should not be deleted. Editors are encouraged to (and should) the article.

(Bondgirlbook (talk) 14:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for spamming or advertising. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 14:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AGenuineFelixLeiter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here

Decline reason:

No reason to believe that this editor intends to do anything except continue to advertise his self-published book (see below) Accounting4Taste:talk 15:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

}

This is not advertising any more than any other page describing a book on Wikipedia is advertising. Moreover, this entry has been intended as a draft, and not a live entry for inclusion on the main web site. I have expressed an interest in receiving assistance in editing and making this page better for when it does become a live entry. At this time, there has, as far as I am aware, been no affirmative action to move this page to a live page. If I am incorrect, then kindly advise and guide me as to how this page can remain a draft.

Furthermore, it is patently unfair to penalize a contributor for attempting to follow the recommendations of a editor, who recommending moving a draft article into userspace so that other editors could comment upon it. New contributors should be afforded latitude to test out this site and make mistakes so long as the contribution has not gone live. Accordingly, I appeal the decision to be blocked and request that it be overturned.

It is hard to understand how an article about a self-published book that has not yet been published could be seen as anything except advertising. New contributors are indeed afforded latitude to test out this site and make mistakes, but we are not the world's webhost; if you want to create self-promotional materials that have no chance of being allowed to remain as a Wikipedia article, you'll have to use your own bandwidth and publish those materials in a place that doesn't have our standards for inclusion. Since there is absolutely no reason to believe that the future holds any notability for the book in question, or indeed any way to verify that it will indeed be published, and you seem to have no intention of contributing anything here except advertising for your book, I cannot see any reason to unblock this account. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to understand how, after seemingly complying with an editor's message about soliciting edits and contributions to improve an article, that this proposed contribution somehow went "live" such that the subsequent activity has occurred. No one expects Wikipedia to serve as a webhost. This contribution was created in user space and was intended to remain there. It is irrelevant that a book is being self-published. The gravamen of this contribution was first and foremost to get experience with the Wikipedia interface, which, to be quite honest, is a bit difficult to navigate for someone who not as technologically adept as those who edit and monitor the contributions. Whether there is any future notability for the book described in the contribution is irrelevant, and since the book is not currently published, there was, in fact, no reason to move this article into the main space.

In short, the point was to create a draft article that remains in user space for editing and to better become acquainted with the interface. You have no evidence that other contributions would not be made, and you have not advised as to how or when this article was moved into general space such that it went live or became ripe for removal. Accordingly, I request that the account be unblocked.

Do you have any intention of contributing anything whatsoever here that isn't about your book? Accounting4Taste:talk 15:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Once I can gain the requisite experience understanding the interface, then yes, it is my intention to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. As previously mentioned, there is no reason to create a live page for a book that technically does not yet exist. So I would appreciate if the account is unblocked and I am afforded the opportunity to "play" with my draft contribution and improve upon it so that I become more acquainted with editing. Thank you.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AGenuineFelixLeiter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

It isn't necessary to unblock you to 'play' with a 'draft' advertising your own book. Since we all agree, under the conflict of interest guidelines, to avoid writing about ourselves, you wouldn't be the person writing about your book if it does become notable one day. Since you don't appear to have any other interest in participating at Wikipedia, you don't seem to need an active Wikipedia account at this time. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AGenuineFelixLeiter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I respectfully disagree. The subject material of draft contributions is irrelevant, except to the extent that it becomes live. Since this "contribution" never went live (or at least was not intended to become live), whether the contribution is about a book or something else is immaterial. Someone else may write about the book. Your statement that I appear to have no other interest in participating at Wikipedia is not grounded in anything save the fact that a draft contribution was created in my user space about a book that currently does not exist. If you expect people to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia, then you should be concerned about the material that is added to the live web page, not the contents of material that remain within the user's own space that is not intended to become public. Your statements serve as a means to an end: no meaningful contribution can ever occur with a blocked account, so the account has been blocked to prove an intent to never meaningfully contribute. This, of course, defies logic and is patently unfair. Accordingly, this account should be unblocked so that meaningful contributions can be made on the live site.

Decline reason:

• sigh* You seem to miss a few points here: 1) ALL pages on Wikipedia belong to the project, and are therefore subject to the same policies. Indeed, the fact that Google's cache still has it is proof that it was LIVE. 2) Promotional is promotional is promotional - whether it's some garage band or an aspiring author, we delete them all ... not just yours. 3) As per your question below, we are not repsonsible for Google. 4) Should you request another unblock, please try and be a lot less confrontational - the admins who have tried to help you understand are well versed in how things work here, and could have been tremendous assets to you if you had listened (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It sounds like your only goal is to learn to use Wikipedia, and not to advertise your book. Now that you're willing to avoid writing about your book completely, in accordance with the conflict of interest guidelines, are you willing to agree to learn to use the interface while writing about a subject other than yourself or your book? Since your only goal is the good of the encyclopedia, and you can learn the interface just as well while expanding the incomplete List of Irish cheeses, that would seem to solve Wikipedia's problem and also reach your goal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That is fine, and yes, my goal is to learn to use Wikipedia, which cannot be done with a blocked account. Kindly unblock the account. Also, I would appreciate if the entire material in connection with my previous draft contribution be entirely removed. It currently appears on google with a "blocked user" notification.

{{unblock|I have not and am not being confrontational with any administrators. No administrator informed me that a draft article was, in fact, live, when that was not the intention of creating the article, whether it was promotional or otherwise. My understanding of a draft is that it is a work in progress and not intended for public consumption. Rather than summarily block me, an explanation would have sufficed such that it could have been deleted properly. I am not concerned about the deletion as much as I am about the manner in which it was done without affording me an opportunity to either correct the draft or delete it myself. If working on a "draft" article in user space makes it live, then kindly inform me of that. I do not know how many times I need to request an unblocked account, but I believe that I have explained my intentions fully such that unblocking is justified. I would appreciate that the account be unblocked. Please assist in facilitating a change in my username upon unblocking of this account. Thank you.([[User:Bondgirlbook|Bondgirlbook]] ([[User talk:Bondgirlbook#top|talk]]) 17:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC))}}

{{unblock|I have made a request for this account to be unblocked. As stated before, the contribution in question was intended as a draft with which to familiarize the features of editing. It was not intended at any time for live posting. It is not possible to contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia while blocked. Therefore, as a few administrators have already suggested that this account would be unblocked if meaningful contributions are intended, I request the account be unblocked as soon as possible. In an effort to further disassociate from the draft contribution that was deleted, I am requested assistance in creating a new username. Thank you.}}

Please check the history of this page - I already advised once that you may only have one active unblock request at a time. You may also want to rethink your top request - you recieved a notification before you were blocked, you just appeared to ignore it ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

BWilkins, your previous post did not indicate you can have one active unblock request at a time. The statement read, in pertinent part, "Should you request another unblock, please try and be a lot less confrontational...." This does not convey that only one request can be made at a time. So, absent indication otherwise, I apologize for the duplication. The notification that was sent was not ignored. It stated "just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other," and I believe that I did that in order to permit editors to review the page and improve upon it. Kindly reinstate this username for the reasons provided above. Thank you. (Bondgirlbook (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

{{help}} Requesting assistance as to how find an e-mail address to contact an administrator.

You have the attention of three administrators already. Are you forum-shopping for one who's potentially going to agree with you? Not a good idea. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I was previously accused of being confrontational; however, it is the tone of the last response that is confrontational. There has been no attempt made to "forum shop," but previous administrators have intimated that favorable disposition would occur such that this account is unblocked. Accordingly, I would like to ascertain why the account has not yet been unblocked and why I am being given what is, at this point, unnecessary run-around after providing ample explanation. Thank you. (Bondgirlbook (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

Comment from unblocking admin

I'm actually taken aback by the hostility shown to this editor on this page. Writing a userspace draft about a self-published book is not a high crime on Wikipedia. I didn't respond to the "help" tag, I checked back on seeing in my contributions list that there was activity on this talk page. I've unblocked as I think an indefinite block in this case was wholly unreasonable. There was no real attempt made to talk with the user and explain our rules. WP:AGF and WP:BITE need to be read again.
Bondgirlbook, hopefully you'll still be interested in contributing to Wikipedia, taking heed of WP:COI and WP:SPAM. For how to change your username (which I agree would be a good idea), see Wikipedia:Changing username. Fences&Windows 21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, to understand why your book is probably never going to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, see WP:Notability. The general rule is that topics need to have been written about in several independent reliable sources before we will have an article about them. Fences&Windows 21:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Fences&windows, for unblocking, though it appears I am still blocked at this time. I will see when the unblock takes effect. The draft contribution about the book, ultimately, need not be on Wikipedia. It was simply a subject that currently does not exist that seemed ripe for creating a draft contribution that had no reason to be live anyway. Your commentary about the administrators' conduct and demeanor is greatly appreciated. I will research how to change the username. Thank you again for unblocking. (Bondgirlbook (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

I have fixed (as in removed) the autoblock that was still on your account. For changing your username, see WP:UNC. As a response to your previous message, please, check the history of this page, and you will see an edit summary where I advised not to have multiple unblock requests. I have attempted sigificantly to be helpful, as have other admins - contrary to your belief. In fact, I am still watching this page should you have issues (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

BWilkins, I appreciate your assistance. (Bondgirlbook (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

username change?

I requested a username change, which was granted, but the contribution that I have attempted to offer show the old username. What am I doing wrong? (Bondgirlbook (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

Try logging out and logging back in with your new username. Solution courtesy of stolen from Chzz (talk · contribs) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It may take some time. If it still does this in a few days, the username change may not have worked. —fetch·comms 21:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the helpme template for now; if the problem persists after you've logged on with the new user and waited a couple of days, feel free to readd the template or come ask us for help in IRC. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try it. (Bondgirlbook (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

I appreciate your help, it worked. (AGenuineFelixLeiter (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC))