User talk:Cicorp

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Cicorp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Sandbox

If I may, I saw your comments to an admin about a page you were working on that got deleted. Rather than put the page up without full references, it's probably better to work on the page in your own userspace and get it properly referenced, proofread, and just the way you want it. Then when you're finished, you can upload it to the page. That way, it's not on wikipedia as a work in progress, which admins frown on. If you need any help setting up a sandbox (a personal page for your workspace), just leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, and good luck! Redrocket (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is good advice from a helpful user, but assumes that the contents of the article meet Wikipedia's policies on notability, among others. The article presently has no references or sources that assert the notability of the topic, is not written using a neutral point of view, and has fairly obvious problems with conflict of interest. As well, if you're trying to assert that this article should remain, adding the (spurious) suggestion that it's in the formal Wikipedia process called Wikipedia:Deletion review is not the way to do it. Deletion review is reserved for articles which have first been through an articles for deletion process, and I can't find any evidence that this article has been through that process or even been entered for Deletion review. I think you may have used this tag in error. I have used a "prod" or proposed deletion tag on the article to give you time to find any references that you may think are relevant and add them to the article, but you will probably have to resign yourself to the idea that your apartment complex is not sufficiently notable to be the subject of an article in Wikipedia. I'm going to suggest that you read up on Wikipedia policy, specifically the links that I've provided you in this paragraph, and if you have any questions about Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page by clicking on the word "talk" after my signature. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Harbour Square

Re your message: As several others have pointed out to you, you need to establish why this particular housing area is notable. It being listed in the National Register of Historic Places is a good start for establishing it's notability, but you will likely need to provide additional citations for reliable sources. For example, has any major news organization covered the area in some kind of substantial manner like a profile of the whole community that does not have a marketing tone? Your computer club is not likely to have enough notability for inclusion on Wikipedia, so I would not recommend listing it.

As Redrocket suggested, I recommend that you work on the article within your userspace until it is fully completed. Recreating it under multiple names in the mainspace will not get the article preserved. I also recommend that you review the links that others have left for you to read. There is a lot of good information on how to write an article and what you should avoid since you have a conflict of interest. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so Lucy's Cafe is a notable historical landmark, and not advertising? What is this about "multiple names" ? - again a false accusation. I have never used any other name. I would appreciate an apology. I'm not holding my breath, but perhaps you will remember this, and not falsely accuse anyone else in the future. Thank you. As of now, there is no information on Wikipedia about Harbour Square where 1000 people live, but plenty of information about a cafe and other businesses. Congratulations.

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not an acceptable counterargument on Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's something that you would like to do here that is within Wikipedia's policies, and you need help to do it, you can leave me a note and I'll help you if I can. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what he's referring to is the different names the article was created under, and not accusing you of having other IDs. As for the comparisons you've mentioned, other stuff exists on wikipedia. Please read that link for an explanation.

You emailed me for help in this matter, and the first piece of advice I offered you was to come back from the block with good civility to other editors. Based on what you just wrote, fresh from the return, it doesn't seem like my good faith advice is being heeded. Redrocket (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - if something is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, then it's notable for our purposes. If you need help with an article about a place on the NRHP, just let me know. Rklawton (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't argue with me on my Talk page. I gave my opinion on the page where you posted your concerns. Are you saying that all of the sources on that page are false? Woogee (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I told you where to take your arguments. Woogee (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on September 11 attacks. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 attacks

Hello. The fact that a newspaper column is an inferior source does not support the inclusion of an irrelevant source (the study you're pushing).

Please note that September 11 attacks is a long article with a short section on conspiracy theories. There is no room for a paragraph-long discussion of every theory, nor for a listing of every paper believed to be relevant by a Wikipedia editor.

Finally, please read WP:PRIMARY, part of Wikipedia's policy concerning "original research". Wikipedia is supposed to be based on secondary sources such as news articles, not primary sources (such as scientific papers). If a paper is truly notable, it will be written about in secondary sources.

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A YouTube video? Are you serious? Please stop this nonsense already. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit "the fact that a newspaper column is an inferior source". Are you seriously claiming that inferior sources are relevant? People come to Wikipedia expecting to find good, relevant sources, without censorship of alternative explanations for events. Cicorp (talk) 04:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TM Photo

Have you ever visited Maharishi's ashram in Rishikesh, India. This is where these structure are supposed to be and were used back in the day as meditation huts. --BwB (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, I have and there were no such huts used. "Back in the day" - what day? You cannot offer any specifics. Any TMer knows the "meditation huts" are bogus attempts to make meditation look kooky. Meditation is a subject of serious scientific research, with hundreds of studies done at independent institutions, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). I have been meditating since 1973, on many courses, and I never heard of anyone meditating in a hut. People meditate in their rooms or in groups on foam in a building comfortable and conducive to meditation. So you blocked me for this?[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Username blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Cicorp, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change. To request a username change:

Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to edit this talk page even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a list of names that have already been taken. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement/Proposed_decision#Protection — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not promoting any business with my name. Show me ANY post that has tried to do this. You can't. What I write on Wikipedia are my own personal views. Please remove this unreasonable block. Cicorp (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is accusing you of promoting a business. But "Cicorp" is the name of a business and Wikipedia has a username policy which does not allow business names. However you are not blocked as a user.

You have two alternatives. First, you could simply abandon this account and create a fresh account. If you do that then it'd be best to leave a note on your user page connecting the accounts. Second, you can request a name change for this account. If you'd like to follow that route then leave a note here to that effect and an admin can unblock this account briefly to allow you to file a name change request. Will Beback talk 06:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]