User talk:CoffeeDrinkers

Speedy deletion nomination of David Pettersen

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on David Pettersen, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It 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 encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback!

Hello, CoffeeDrinkers. You have new messages at MrScorch6200's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Assistance

{{Admin help}}

Could I please get help with the un-deletion of an article we wrote on David Pettersen? CoffeeDrinkers (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to responding admin: please see my talkpage here. Thanks. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG tagged it for deletion and User:Slon02 deleted it - you will have to discuss with them Ronhjones ^(Talk) 02:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please have the records of all that was written in 2010 and 2011 and now in 2014. (Each time the page was deleted) We were unaware that Mr. Pettersen had an article prior to this year, when he announced his run for school board. Could you please supply us with all of the articles? CoffeeDrinkers (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't just me. Six previous admins had tagged it for deletion or deleted it--they are clearly about the same person. I have now additionally protected it from re-creation for 5 years, by which time it is possible that his high school student might accomplish something notable.

If by any chance, you are not him, the logical conclusion would be that you are a schoolmate trying to make fun of him. If you continue this, I shall block you. The formal warning is below. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not they were about the same person, the five previous articles were properly deleted as unsourced material about a non-notable living person, and by the policy on WP:Biographies of living persons will not be restored or sent to you. JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We understand. We just wanted to review them before so that we could defend our position that those were not about the same David Pettersen we were writing about. Therefore, we did not feel that the page should be blocked from recreation for five years since it is simply not the same person writing all six of the articles. Now we aren't seeking to view them anymore, I think it is more well understood now. Interesting that the ones prior were about bullying or being an author...The Pettersen we wrote about was never an author or anti-bullying advocate. CoffeeDrinkers (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you create an inappropriate page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for unreasonable harassment of other editors.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previous articles

Hello! I just noticed you left me a message on my talk page about asking to see the old articles. I looked at the old articles as I was deleting the one you wrote, and it seems rather clear that they're not about the same person. One of them is about an author, and the rest are re-creations of a person who blogged about being bullied- no shared information whatsoever with the article that was just deleted, which is about a school board candidate. I'm sorry if you've received somewhat of a harsh welcoming to Wikipedia, and I do find it strange that you were blocked, but I do have to agree that the article subject just isn't suitable for Wikipedia. In the realm of politicians, our notability guidelines generally mean that we don't have articles on local school board members (or candidates) unless there is something REALLY exceptional about them- and I don't think that his age is quite enough. If you ever have questions on Wikipedia inclusion policies, you can of course feel free to ask me, but I also recommend that you read some of our policy information pages regarding notability to get a better feel- WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO, and WP:N.--Slon02 (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I continue to think it is likely to be the same person. But there is no need to press the matter. And I have just unblocked. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just spoken with Mr. Pettersen via phone and have sent all of the remarks from DGG to him online. He, first and foremost, wants to greatly thank Slon02 for their kindness in the matter, and also said that DGG made up outrageous lies. He is greatly concerned that DGG is an editor, as some of his remarks were so grammatically incorrect on talk pages. He can also confirm that he has not been involved in any sort of blogging on bullying and he can also confirm that he has never been an author. Mr. Pettersen would also like to know if there is a more senior administrator that he can bring the matter up with, as DGG has been so extremely disrespectful. We can completely confirm that the past articles about David Pettersen were never about the David Pettersen that is currently running for school board.

Here is one of our talks...Does this seem respectful?:

Me: "Hi, Would we still be able to receive his old articles posted in the past, and the one that was just posted yesterday? We were wondering if we could receive and retain those records for review. Thank you for your time."

DGG: "not in this case. Now or ever. Your talk p. has the explanation: you are either engaging in advertisement or harassment. BTW, you may not under any circumstances remove something from another person's talk page."

Is that the way an editor should talk to a new Wikipedia user? CoffeeDrinkers (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well, one thing is certainly true--you may not remove material that has been posted on other people's talk pages. Another is that it is not bad grammar to use sentence fragments for effect. I apologize if you feel insulted, but that sometimes does happen when we try to keep an entirely inappropriate article about a person out of WP. I certainly cannot prove you the earlier materials are about the same person, and I apologize if I sounded overconfident about it , but at least some were about a high school student. DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do apologize for the mistake of deleting material on someone else's talk page. As far as we know, there was no page associated with the David Pettersen that we know - and he has also informed us that he has never had a page on Wikipedia before, to his knowledge. CoffeeDrinkers (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account

It appears that this account is operated by more than one person - both because of the username ("CoffeeDrinkers") and because of some of the posts of the account using the first person plural (e.g "We thank you very much"). Please note that an account is to be used only by one person (see WP:NOSHARING), and the user name should reflect that (see Wikipedia:Username policy#Usernames implying shared use. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily-- lots of people use the plural for themselves, and even have plurals in WP names. True, if its not the subject it's someone working in his election campaign, but I don;t see evidence it's more than one person. DGG ( talk ) 15:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Yes, but still, if this account does turn out to be shared, it may be blocked. (Although they can just be using the pompous "we"…) Epicgenius (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not shared. We refer to ourselves as "we" because we are his overall, general staff. Thank you for your concern. CoffeeDrinkers (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]