User talk:Npcomp

Welcome!

Hello, Npcomp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

OpenPAT

I was going to nominate OpenPAT for deletion because it does not make any real claim of notability other than being a software maintenance tool, which is not a claim of notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word.

However, I saw that you left an AFC submission template on the page, so I moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/OpenPAT. Please read WP:42 and the pages it links to. When you find reliable, independent sources that show significant coverage of the topic, please improve the submission and submit it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

OpenPAT Article

Hello Davidwr,

I consider OpenPAT notable because:

1. the system was previously listed and linked to by the following Wikipedia pages:
   List of performance analysis tools
   SBSE
   and so was a RED link
2. independent peer reviewed academic journal, conference and other articles like the ones supplied already discuss OpenPAT in a wide and detailed context and these coupled with the Wikipedia articles represent "significant independent content" referring to OpenPAT in its current and previous name
3. the external invited presentation list supplied shows that there is notable independent international interest in the system

Additionally, while the supplied initial article could undoubtedly be improved on, other performance analysis software like Valgrind, Pin and OProfile listed on the List of performance analysis tools page have similar or less comprehensive Wikipedia articles with far fewer external and peer reviewed journal and conference references indicating that the supplied OpenPAT Wikipedia article may be considered a reasonable starting point.

Notes

npcomp Npcomp (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you for pointing out articles that may need to be nominated for deletion.

Second, the "normal" way to list references on a talk page is to just list them as "bullet items," without surrounding them <ref></ref>. Like so:

• Spacey, S. (2013). "Parallel Partitioning for Distributed Systems using Sequential Assignment" (PDF). Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing. 73 (2): 207–219. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Since you already went to the trouble of using in-line citations like you would for an article, I added the group= parameter so they won't get mixed up with any other references that might appear on this talk page in the future. I hope you don't mind. I also moved your signature to below the reference list so it's clear that the reference list was added by you, not by me or someone else.

Now, on to the article in question:

Any work by Spacey that is related to OpenPAT is by definition not independent of the subject, as the subject was created by Spacey. Also, the presence of WP:REDLINK can indicate that a subject might be notable or it may just indicate that at some point in time, some editor either believed it was notable or wished it were notable. Again, please read WP:42 and the pages it links to, especially WP:GNG, before investing more time in this.

Since you are not a "brand new" editor, you may WP:MOVE the page to the main encyclopedia any time you wish. However, if you do so before improving it to the point that the subject is clearly notable, it risks being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If it is nominated, an administrator will look at the discussion 7 days later and if the consensus is that the article should be deleted, it will be deleted. This is the fate I saved this article from. Instead of only having 7 days, you can take as long as you want to improve it, and you can solicit feedback from other editors as you do so.

As for the two articles you mentioned that already had links to this subject: It looks like one was added by you very recently, and one was added back in August of this year by a non-logged-in editor from the University of Sterling (see this and this). The presence of "red-links" and "mentions of a topic including a URL about that topic" by themselves they contribute little or nothing to the idea that this topic is notable enough to qualify for a stand-alone article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

OpenPAT

Hello,

Thanks for helping me with this and your feedback.

My point about the articles was that they have been published in reputable journals so they have been reviewed by independent reviewers. Ignoring the point that the articles have co-authors from reputable universities, the fact that Spacey was first author on most of the articles on OpenPAT should not be a surprise and we see the same primary author "problem" for other systems like Valgrind and Pin of course.

I believe the OpenPAT lectures at the Computer Science departments of the National University of Singapore, Moscow State University, Helsinki University etc, the fact that a person from the University of Sterling added a link to OpenPAT on the SBSE page and the fact the the OpenPAT link was accepted on the List of performance analysis tools page indicate that there is a sizeable community of independent experts that think OpenPAT is notable and that this strongly supports the article.

I am in fact quite new at editing Wikipedia so I thank you for your patience, comments on the article which I have accepted and addressed and for helping me understand more about the Wikipedia process.

Thanks again,

npcomp Npcomp (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your points are well taken except for the bit about adding material to other pages. Wikipedia articles are not necessarily curated by experts, or for that matter, curated at all in any formal way (this is one reason why Wikipedia is not a "reliable source"). I could make up a fake web site about something seemingly relevant and seemingly non-promotional to a topic and add a link to that page and it would likely not be deleted unless someone who recognized fakery when they saw it noticed. I could also make up a seeminly-logical name for a fake related topic and insert it as a redlink and it might not be deleted, especially if I put some fake non-promotional articles about the term on the web so it would get at least a few Google hits.

I will say that merely being used at a handful of institutions worldwide doesn't necessarily indicate that a topic is notable, it may indicate that the people doing the researchers happen to have known each other for years and take an initial interest in each others' work for personal reasons.

As an analogy, see WP:ACADEMIC for how Wikipedia measures the "notability" of people in academia. While Wikipedia doesn't have a specific notability guideline for concepts which are largely of interest only in academia or specific industries, a similar "rule of thumb" can apply: The more widespread a concept's use is, the more likely it is that the concept has received the significant coverage from independent, reliable sources needed to qualify for an article under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Software engineering concepts like bubble sort have been taught for decades and easily pass. Many concepts that haven't made their way into the popular press or widespread use in academia or industry do not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding comments to an AFC submmission

It's generally bad practice to change someone else's comments unless it's required for a technical reason (such as my adding "group=" to your comments earlier).

For AFC comments, the best way to respond to an existing comment is to add a blank line and your own "afc comment" between the last such comment and the ---- which appears above the text of your submission, like so:

17:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)</small>}}

{{afc comment|1=This is a new comment. ~~~~}}
----

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Npcomp! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:OpenPAT process.png

Thank you for uploading File:OpenPAT process.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:OpenPAT logo.png

Thank you for uploading File:OpenPAT logo.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Aes256 dfg labeled.png

Thank you for uploading File:Aes256 dfg labeled.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Aes256 cfg labeled.png

Thank you for uploading File:Aes256 cfg labeled.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Update

Sorry, I am new at this.

The source information was supplied in the Comment column of the image history table at the bottom of the page.

I have added it to the image Summary Section and the same for all the other images. Hope this is OK.

Thanks,

npcomp (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comparison of debuggers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages HPC and Profiling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Update

Added disambiguating links.

npcomp (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

OpenPAT Page?

Hello MSGJ,

Why was this page deleted?

Please could you provide some feedback.

I have added the last version of the page to my sandbox.

npcomp (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not MSGJ but I think I can answer your question: See #OpenPAT above, where I explained that I MOVED the page to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/OpenPAT, leaving behind a temporary "redirect" so that if you went there, you would wind up at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/OpenPAT. The temporary redirect has been deleted. Your draft article remains. The most recent edit was made at 04:20, 7 November 2013‎ (UTC) by you. Please keep editing while the submission awaits its turn in the articles for creation queue (click here for the full queue). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again Davidwr, I have removed the article from my Sandbox. Really appreciate you helping me understand the process. npcomp (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC OpenPAT was accepted

OpenPAT, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Ninney (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

UK/US spelling

In a recent edit to the page Crab mentality, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. --McGeddon (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

On original research

Please understand that we almost never document the self-referential history of an article in the article. You need to prove that this incident is relevant to OpenPAT itself (WP:IINFO being key here), which is done by showing that reliable sources independent of Wikipedia and OpenPAT are taking interest. It's very heavily original research because you are the one drawing these conclusions (e.g. saying an IP knew full well of some fact, and ultimately in saying that it's significant enough to include in an encyclopedia) unless you are directly citing some source. Wikipedia's own logs are neither independent of us, nor are they capable of drawing conclusions on their own. We do not break news; we aggregate reports of news elsewhere. — Earwig ^talk 06:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for an indefinite period

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for from reviewing your recent edits, it appears that your primary purpose for contributing to Wikipedia is to add material advancing the complaints made by Dr Simon Spacey against the University of Waikato, largely supported by references to what appear to be self-published articles and other material by him (for instance [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). This is clearly not appropriate encyclopaedic content, and is not neutral given that the matter remains under investigation according to this news story with the university disputing Dr Spacey's complaints. Wikipedia is not a suitable forum for such material, especially given that its the subject of legal action. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Reason for Blocking

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

The block was placed after I updated the Talk page for this article. Not the main article. The update was appropriate for the talk page as confirmed by for example the Wikipedia Admin Kelapstick who suggested a move of sections there. The move just copied previous items that had been on the main page for some time and had begun to be deleted after recent press coverage in Waikato New Zealand which discussed a new case (the case that was being discussed in the disputed Project Status section having been completed).

However, the move also added one piece of new information, namely a link to a blog article by Simon Spacey where recent edits by Wikipedia Administrators were discussed. In particular the deletion of the Project Status section from the main article was brought into question as its stated justification of "blatant copyright infringement" was not at all valid as discussed in the blog.

It is interesting that it was actually you Nick-D that did the deletion the blog brought into question and that it is you who then banned this account immediately after it provided a link to the blog on the OpenPAT talk page. It is also interesting that there were several other updates to the OpenPAT page by admins surrounding the admin article lock and, while the admins from other countries read and made changes to the Wikipedia article, they left the Project Status section there. It was there until you decided to delete it.

It seems then the Wikipedia Administrator blocked the user because he:

1. accepted admin changes to the main article,
2. followed instructions and added items to the talk page and then
3. added a link to a page highlighting potential issues with recent Wikipedia admin actions on an external blog

which seems very inappropriate.

While not really relevant for this account suspension discussion given the above, as the block brings the subject up, I submit the Project Status content explaining why the project had been suspended was valid in any case (although I accept it could have been reworded if requested). The content was valid because:

1. the discussed court case is exactly why OpenPAT development was suspended
2. the reasons for the suspension are Dr Spacey's to explain making a quote or similar from him giving his reasons appropriate
3. the reasons have been verified by the project site word-for-word here
4. and the OpenPAT status page clearly states a CC BY-SA license that allows the words to be used as a quote on Wikipedia (this is also discussed on the blog here)

it would have perhaps been better to ask for a rewording given the above rather than to suspend the account and if you needed a specific statement on copyright from OpenPAT I am sure they would have supplied one if asked as Gadfium has recently suggested. They already did that when asked to allow Wikipedia to use their logo.

Additionally, the claim of self-published items and an on-going case are not really valid:

• all the references are real court documents which have been published through the court and released publicly under the rules of Open Justice

this is a very different situation from say someone just creating a document and publishing it themselves on-line. These files are available in physical form from the Employment Relations Court in New Zealand on request by anyone in the public or press today and have been released on the web through the links provided under the rules of Open Justice for your convenience. Further:

• the case that suspended the project as discussed in the Project Status section has already terminated, it is not on-going.

The on-going case was discussed in the Vandalism section not the Project Status section and Kelapstick explicitly advised the Vandalism section be moved to the talk page. The cases have different case numbers and are on different subjects.

Finally, it is not important if the case that suspended the project is eventually won or not or whether it is even valid. The section discusses why the project was suspended, not the case merits. It is a fact the project was suspended by Dr Spacey because of the case, the reason Dr Spacey suspended the case was verified by the OpenPAT site and that information was repeated as a quote. While you have a right to read the case submissions and say if you think the case is valid or not, that does not change the fact that the project was suspended and the reason it was suspended which is what the section stated.

If the section could have been read as claiming anything other than the fact that the project had been suspended and the verified reason why Dr Spacey had suspended the project, then a rewording should have been requested. The appropriate response was not to repeatedly try to delete the section starting with anonymous users in Waikato New Zealand and ending with Wikipedia administrators and then electing to suspend the account that added the Project Status information and stated reasons which people were unhappy with. It is not for Wikipedia Admins to only publish why someone suspended a project if the reasons make their friends look good and not otherwise. This inappropriateness is exactly why the incident is discussed on Simon Spacey's blog.

So with all that, the only real reason for the account suspension just after updating the Talk page seems to be:

highlighting potential issues with recent Wikipedia admin actions on an external blog

which I submit is very inappropriate use of administrator power inline with the discussion on Simon Spacey's blog making the blog discussion there even more valid and appropriate to add to the talk page.

PS: given the above explanation that the first case is finished (there being a new case as discussed here), the fact that the case documents are published/available from the court and the general information describing, I expect, why the other admins had no issue with the Project Status section you seem to be so disturbed by (assuming you're going to not admit it's the blog), then you might want to stop going around all the other Wikipedia pages deleting items written by this account that had been accepted by other admins. It makes you look as if you are on a revenge mission and trying to sensor others on Wikipedia.

~~

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The block was placed after I updated the Talk page for this article. Not the main article. The update was appropriate for the talk page as confirmed by for example the Wikipedia Admin [[User|Kelapstick]] who suggested a move of sections there. The move just copied previous items that had been on the main page for some time and had begun to be deleted after recent press coverage in Waikato New Zealand which discussed a new case (the case that was being discussed in the disputed Project Status section having been completed). However, the move also added one piece of new information, namely a link to a [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-begging-cyberbullied-your-linkedin-profile-simon-spacey blog article by Simon Spacey] where recent edits by Wikipedia Administrators were discussed. In particular the deletion of the Project Status section from the main article was brought into question as its stated justification of "blatant copyright infringement" was not at all valid as discussed in the blog. It is interesting that it was actually you '''Nick-D''' that did the deletion the blog brought into question and that it is you who then banned this account immediately after it provided a link to the blog on the OpenPAT talk page. It is also interesting that there were several other updates to the OpenPAT page by admins surrounding the admin article lock and, while the admins from other countries read and made changes to the Wikipedia article, they left the Project Status section there. It was there until you decided to delete it. It seems then the Wikipedia Administrator blocked the user because he: # accepted admin changes to the main article, # followed instructions and added items to the talk page and then # '''added a link to a page highlighting potential issues with recent Wikipedia admin actions on an external blog''' which seems very inappropriate. While not really relevant for this account suspension discussion given the above, as the block brings the subject up, I submit the Project Status content explaining why the project had been suspended was valid in any case (although I accept it could have been reworded if requested). The content was valid because: # the discussed court case is exactly why OpenPAT development was suspended # the reasons for the suspension are Dr Spacey's to explain making a quote or similar from him giving his reasons appropriate # the reasons have been verified by the project site word-for-word [http://www.OpenPAT.org/#project_status here] # and the [http://www.OpenPAT.org/#project_status OpenPAT status page] '''clearly states a CC BY-SA license that allows the words to be used as a quote on Wikipedia''' (this is also discussed [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-begging-cyberbullied-your-linkedin-profile-simon-spacey on the blog here]) it would have perhaps been better to ask for a rewording given the above rather than to suspend the account and if you needed a specific statement on copyright from OpenPAT I am sure they would have supplied one if asked as [[User|Gadfium]] has recently suggested. They already did that when asked to allow Wikipedia to use their logo. Additionally, the claim of '''self-published''' items and an on-going case are not really valid: * all the references are real court documents which have been '''published through the court''' and released publicly under the rules of Open Justice this is a very different situation from say someone just creating a document and publishing it themselves on-line. These files are available in physical form from the Employment Relations Court in New Zealand on request by anyone in the public or press '''today''' and have been released on the web through the links provided under the rules of Open Justice for your convenience. Further: * the case that suspended the project as discussed in the Project Status section has already terminated, it is not on-going. The on-going case was discussed in the Vandalism section not the Project Status section and [[User|Kelapstick]] explicitly advised the Vandalism section be moved to the talk page. The cases have different case numbers and are on different subjects. Finally, it is not important if the case that suspended the project is eventually won or not or whether it is even valid. The section discusses why the project was suspended, not the case merits. It is a fact the project was suspended by Dr Spacey because of the case, the reason Dr Spacey suspended the case was verified by the OpenPAT site and that information was repeated as a quote. While you have a right to read the case submissions and say if you think the case is valid or not, that does not change the fact that the project was suspended and the reason it was suspended which is what the section stated. If the section could have been read as claiming anything other than the fact that the project had been suspended and the verified reason why Dr Spacey had suspended the project, then a rewording should have been requested. The appropriate response was not to repeatedly try to delete the section starting with anonymous users in Waikato New Zealand and ending with Wikipedia administrators and then electing to suspend the account that added the Project Status information and stated reasons which people were unhappy with. It is not for Wikipedia Admins to only publish why someone suspended a project if the reasons make their friends look good and not otherwise. This inappropriateness is exactly why the incident is discussed on [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-begging-cyberbullied-your-linkedin-profile-simon-spacey Simon Spacey's blog]. So with all that, the only real reason for the account suspension just after updating the Talk page seems to be: '''highlighting potential issues with recent Wikipedia admin actions on an external blog''' which I submit is very inappropriate use of administrator power inline with the discussion on [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-begging-cyberbullied-your-linkedin-profile-simon-spacey Simon Spacey's blog] making the blog discussion there even more valid and appropriate to add to the talk page. PS: given the above explanation that the first case is finished (there being a '''new''' case as discussed [http://OpenPAT.org/#project_status here]), the fact that the case documents are published/available from the court and the general information describing, I expect, why the other admins had no issue with the Project Status section you seem to be so disturbed by (assuming you're going to not admit it's the blog), then you might want to stop going around all the other Wikipedia pages deleting items written by this account that had been accepted by other admins. It makes you look as if you are on a '''revenge mission''' and trying to sensor others on Wikipedia. [[User:Npcomp]] ~~ |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=The block was placed after I updated the Talk page for this article. Not the main article. The update was appropriate for the talk page as confirmed by for example the Wikipedia Admin [[User|Kelapstick]] who suggested a move of sections there. The move just copied previous items that had been on the main page for some time and had begun to be deleted after recent press coverage in Waikato New Zealand which discussed a new case (the case that was being discussed in the disputed Project Status section having been completed). However, the move also added one piece of new information, namely a link to a [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-begging-cyberbullied-your-linkedin-profile-simon-spacey blog article by Simon Spacey] where recent edits by Wikipedia Administrators were discussed. In particular the deletion of the Project Status section from the main article was brought into question as its stated justification of "blatant copyright infringement" was not at all valid as discussed in the blog. It is interesting that it was actually you '''Nick-D''' that did the deletion the blog brought into question and that it is you who then banned this account immediately after it provided a link to the blog on the OpenPAT talk page. It is also interesting that there were several other updates to the OpenPAT page by admins surrounding the admin article lock and, while the admins from other countries read and made changes to the Wikipedia article, they left the Project Status section there. It was there until you decided to delete it. It seems then the Wikipedia Administrator blocked the user because he: # accepted admin changes to the main article, # followed instructions and added items to the talk page and then # '''added a link to a page highlighting potential issues with recent Wikipedia admin actions on an external blog''' which seems very inappropriate. While not really relevant for this account suspension discussion given the above, as the block brings the subject up, I submit the Project Status content explaining why the project had been suspended was valid in any case (although I accept it could have been reworded if requested). The content was valid because: # the discussed court case is exactly why OpenPAT development was suspended # the reasons for the suspension are Dr Spacey's to explain making a quote or similar from him giving his reasons appropriate # the reasons have been verified by the project site word-for-word [http://www.OpenPAT.org/#project_status here] # and the [http://www.OpenPAT.org/#project_status OpenPAT status page] '''clearly states a CC BY-SA license that allows the words to be used as a quote on Wikipedia''' (this is also discussed [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-begging-cyberbullied-your-linkedin-profile-simon-spacey on the blog here]) it would have perhaps been better to ask for a rewording given the above rather than to suspend the account and if you needed a specific statement on copyright from OpenPAT I am sure they would have supplied one if asked as [[User|Gadfium]] has recently suggested. They already did that when asked to allow Wikipedia to use their logo. Additionally, the claim of '''self-published''' items and an on-going case are not really valid: * all the references are real court documents which have been '''published through the court''' and released publicly under the rules of Open Justice this is a very different situation from say someone just creating a document and publishing it themselves on-line. These files are available in physical form from the Employment Relations Court in New Zealand on request by anyone in the public or press '''today''' and have been released on the web through the links provided under the rules of Open Justice for your convenience. Further: * the case that suspended the project as discussed in the Project Status section has already terminated, it is not on-going. The on-going case was discussed in the Vandalism section not the Project Status section and [[User|Kelapstick]] explicitly advised the Vandalism section be moved to the talk page. The cases have different case numbers and are on different subjects. Finally, it is not important if the case that suspended the project is eventually won or not or whether it is even valid. The section discusses why the project was suspended, not the case merits. It is a fact the project was suspended by Dr Spacey because of the case, the reason Dr Spacey suspended the case was verified by the OpenPAT site and that information was repeated as a quote. While you have a right to read the case submissions and say if you think the case is valid or not, that does not change the fact that the project was suspended and the reason it was suspended which is what the section stated. If the section could have been read as claiming anything other than the fact that the project had been suspended and the verified reason why Dr Spacey had suspended the project, then a rewording should have been requested. The appropriate response was not to repeatedly try to delete the section starting with anonymous users in Waikato New Zealand and ending with Wikipedia administrators and then electing to suspend the account that added the Project Status information and stated reasons which people were unhappy with. It is not for Wikipedia Admins to only publish why someone suspended a project if the reasons make their friends look good and not otherwise. This inappropriateness is exactly why the incident is discussed on [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-begging-cyberbullied-your-linkedin-profile-simon-spacey Simon Spacey's blog]. So with all that, the only real reason for the account suspension just after updating the Talk page seems to be: '''highlighting potential issues with recent Wikipedia admin actions on an external blog''' which I submit is very inappropriate use of administrator power inline with the discussion on [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-begging-cyberbullied-your-linkedin-profile-simon-spacey Simon Spacey's blog] making the blog discussion there even more valid and appropriate to add to the talk page. PS: given the above explanation that the first case is finished (there being a '''new''' case as discussed [http://OpenPAT.org/#project_status here]), the fact that the case documents are published/available from the court and the general information describing, I expect, why the other admins had no issue with the Project Status section you seem to be so disturbed by (assuming you're going to not admit it's the blog), then you might want to stop going around all the other Wikipedia pages deleting items written by this account that had been accepted by other admins. It makes you look as if you are on a '''revenge mission''' and trying to sensor others on Wikipedia. [[User:Npcomp]] ~~ |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=The block was placed after I updated the Talk page for this article. Not the main article. The update was appropriate for the talk page as confirmed by for example the Wikipedia Admin [[User|Kelapstick]] who suggested a move of sections there. The move just copied previous items that had been on the main page for some time and had begun to be deleted after recent press coverage in Waikato New Zealand which discussed a new case (the case that was being discussed in the disputed Project Status section having been completed). However, the move also added one piece of new information, namely a link to a [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-begging-cyberbullied-your-linkedin-profile-simon-spacey blog article by Simon Spacey] where recent edits by Wikipedia Administrators were discussed. In particular the deletion of the Project Status section from the main article was brought into question as its stated justification of "blatant copyright infringement" was not at all valid as discussed in the blog. It is interesting that it was actually you '''Nick-D''' that did the deletion the blog brought into question and that it is you who then banned this account immediately after it provided a link to the blog on the OpenPAT talk page. It is also interesting that there were several other updates to the OpenPAT page by admins surrounding the admin article lock and, while the admins from other countries read and made changes to the Wikipedia article, they left the Project Status section there. It was there until you decided to delete it. It seems then the Wikipedia Administrator blocked the user because he: # accepted admin changes to the main article, # followed instructions and added items to the talk page and then # '''added a link to a page highlighting potential issues with recent Wikipedia admin actions on an external blog''' which seems very inappropriate. While not really relevant for this account suspension discussion given the above, as the block brings the subject up, I submit the Project Status content explaining why the project had been suspended was valid in any case (although I accept it could have been reworded if requested). The content was valid because: # the discussed court case is exactly why OpenPAT development was suspended # the reasons for the suspension are Dr Spacey's to explain making a quote or similar from him giving his reasons appropriate # the reasons have been verified by the project site word-for-word [http://www.OpenPAT.org/#project_status here] # and the [http://www.OpenPAT.org/#project_status OpenPAT status page] '''clearly states a CC BY-SA license that allows the words to be used as a quote on Wikipedia''' (this is also discussed [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-begging-cyberbullied-your-linkedin-profile-simon-spacey on the blog here]) it would have perhaps been better to ask for a rewording given the above rather than to suspend the account and if you needed a specific statement on copyright from OpenPAT I am sure they would have supplied one if asked as [[User|Gadfium]] has recently suggested. They already did that when asked to allow Wikipedia to use their logo. Additionally, the claim of '''self-published''' items and an on-going case are not really valid: * all the references are real court documents which have been '''published through the court''' and released publicly under the rules of Open Justice this is a very different situation from say someone just creating a document and publishing it themselves on-line. These files are available in physical form from the Employment Relations Court in New Zealand on request by anyone in the public or press '''today''' and have been released on the web through the links provided under the rules of Open Justice for your convenience. Further: * the case that suspended the project as discussed in the Project Status section has already terminated, it is not on-going. The on-going case was discussed in the Vandalism section not the Project Status section and [[User|Kelapstick]] explicitly advised the Vandalism section be moved to the talk page. The cases have different case numbers and are on different subjects. Finally, it is not important if the case that suspended the project is eventually won or not or whether it is even valid. The section discusses why the project was suspended, not the case merits. It is a fact the project was suspended by Dr Spacey because of the case, the reason Dr Spacey suspended the case was verified by the OpenPAT site and that information was repeated as a quote. While you have a right to read the case submissions and say if you think the case is valid or not, that does not change the fact that the project was suspended and the reason it was suspended which is what the section stated. If the section could have been read as claiming anything other than the fact that the project had been suspended and the verified reason why Dr Spacey had suspended the project, then a rewording should have been requested. The appropriate response was not to repeatedly try to delete the section starting with anonymous users in Waikato New Zealand and ending with Wikipedia administrators and then electing to suspend the account that added the Project Status information and stated reasons which people were unhappy with. It is not for Wikipedia Admins to only publish why someone suspended a project if the reasons make their friends look good and not otherwise. This inappropriateness is exactly why the incident is discussed on [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-begging-cyberbullied-your-linkedin-profile-simon-spacey Simon Spacey's blog]. So with all that, the only real reason for the account suspension just after updating the Talk page seems to be: '''highlighting potential issues with recent Wikipedia admin actions on an external blog''' which I submit is very inappropriate use of administrator power inline with the discussion on [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-begging-cyberbullied-your-linkedin-profile-simon-spacey Simon Spacey's blog] making the blog discussion there even more valid and appropriate to add to the talk page. PS: given the above explanation that the first case is finished (there being a '''new''' case as discussed [http://OpenPAT.org/#project_status here]), the fact that the case documents are published/available from the court and the general information describing, I expect, why the other admins had no issue with the Project Status section you seem to be so disturbed by (assuming you're going to not admit it's the blog), then you might want to stop going around all the other Wikipedia pages deleting items written by this account that had been accepted by other admins. It makes you look as if you are on a '''revenge mission''' and trying to sensor others on Wikipedia. [[User:Npcomp]] ~~ |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}