User talk:Azuresky Voight

People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler

Hi, as you can see at the infobox's documentation, subsequent_actions isn't supposed to be used for decisions/rulings. Just letting you know. pandakekok9 (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Dennis Jose Borbon

Hello, Azuresky Voight. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dennis Jose Borbon, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. JBchrch talk 10:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

the page is not considered an "attack page" because it is not "unsourced". Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced content is just one example. JBchrch talk 11:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It's an article about a criminal whose acts has been documented in reliable sources. It is not an attack page. Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. JBchrch talk 11:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles about criminals should be deleted for being "disparaging"? Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

A page you created has been deleted as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't care if you have sources. It was not in a neutral tone, it was in an extremely hostile tone. You clearly are not able to write about this subject in a neutral tone so leave it to other editors to cover the topic. Repetition of this sort of use of Wikipedia will result in a block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

By all means please rewrite the article in a "more neutral" tone, since it is not unsourced. And the "hostile" notion is a bit of an exaggeration. It is only appearing disparaging because the news articles that tackled the subject has not stated anything good about the subject. So how will you write an article about a criminal in a "more neutral tone"? Please demonstrate by rewriting the article. Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I am acting in an administrative capacity here and will not get involved in the content. I just noticed that you created the page a second time after it was deleted as an attack page already. If I had noticed that before I had warned you then you would be blocked right now. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Considered reliable sources frequently cited on wikipedia articles such as PhilStar, Daily Inquirer, Gma News, Abs-Cbn news, Rappler, etc. have all written articles regarding the subject (Dennis Jose Borbon) and his crimes so those articles can be compiled to a wikipedia article. Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Again it is not an attack page because it is an article about a criminal whose acts have been documented by news outlets that are frequently cited by wikipedia. Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

We take our biographies of living people policy very seriously and violating it is a very fast way to leave to project. If you want to work in the area you had better study it because you have already made 2 serious violations of it. A 3rd will result in a block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually the subject is already dead since March 2021 according to his former lawyer's tweet: https://twitter.com/yesyesyo13/status/1376315991257358343 so it is not a living person biography. Azuresky Voight (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The same policy applies to recently deceased people. You really should actually read the policy. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The policy about recently deceased is for unsourced/poorly-sourced materials. The article I wrote cited reliable sources such as news articles from the main news outlets in the Philippines (gma news, abscbn news, manila times, daily inquirer, philstar, rappler, etc.) all writing about the subject and telling the same thing altogether. How was that "poorly-sourced" or unsourced? Azuresky Voight (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

It was deleted under this part of the policy that you clearly still have not read: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking. All of the sources in the world does not remove the requirement that it be neutral in tone. I am finished explaining this to you, I have given you a link to the policy and you are being held to that standard if you edit any article about a living or recently deceased person. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I still fail to see how the article was "contentious". The subject's notability is the fact that he is a criminal who has victimised politicians. And it was documented by reliable sources. Writing an article about the subject based on news headlines is just stating the fact of the matter. And there is nothing questionable about that because it is well-documented by news outlets. Azuresky Voight (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Plus the subject is dead. And is an article about a criminal whose notability is for being a criminal. The article has not libelled him and has only summarized that he is a criminal. Azuresky Voight (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Azuresky Voight: the problem is that the article you wrote does not adhere to the WP:NPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE policies. If you want to take a look at a neutral, well-written article about a criminal, see for instance Ted Bundy. JBchrch talk 12:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I will try to rewrite the article based on Ted Bundy's template. Thanks. Azuresky Voight (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I would advise you not to. Another BLP violation will result in a ban from the topic of BLP, and frankly I don't think you understand the concept. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia without their explicit permission. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about another user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors will result in being blocked from editing. Salvio 14:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Azuresky Voight! Your additions to Dengvaxia controversy have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mocha Uson. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

-Object404 (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

You're the one vandalising the article of Mocha Uson, disregarding the BLP policy on neutrality and turning wikipedia into a tabloid by adding contentious material against the subject. Please block User:Object404 from editing Mocha Uson article. @User:Bbb23 @User:HighInBC He has records of sockpuppetry and vandalism in the past.Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I did not engage in vandalism, nor sockpuppetry, and that instance of alleged "sockpuppetry" was years ago when I was not aware of certain WP policies. I was appropriately disciplined, have served my time, and now continue to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. -Object404 (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Disregarding BLP policy using WP:RS to vandalise certain articles and calling subjects as fake news peddler, propagandist and adding contentious materials against LGBT people does not seem to be the acts of a disciplined and productive person. Azuresky Voight (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the topic of living people and recently deceased people broadly construed for a period of 1 year.

You have been sanctioned for BLP violations, misapplication of the BLP policy, and edit warring on BLP articles.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)