User talk:Deadalus821

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Deadalus821! I am Ks0stm and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Ks0stm ^(T•C) 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

{{ Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Intelligence quotient do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dmcq (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mega Genius

A tag has been placed on Mega Genius, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that 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 general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Mega Genius and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dmcq (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Mega Genius

Hi Deadalus821. You are certainly welcome to resumbit the article, but I suggest you read WP:ADS and WP:MOS before doing so. Wikipedia has a policy against advertising/spam and pages which meet such criteria (see WP:ADS) are subject to speedy deletion per deletion criterion G11. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Jim Diamond. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Jim Diamond was changed by Deadalus821 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2009-08-16T22:47:44+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jim Diamond (Mega Genius)

A tag has been placed on Jim Diamond (Mega Genius), 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.

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), 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. — jwillbur 01:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jim Diamond (Mega Genius)

A tag has been placed on Jim Diamond (Mega Genius), 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.

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), 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. — jwillbur 02:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Jim Diamond (Magician)

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Jim Diamond (Magician), please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.megagenius.com/Mega_Genius_Biography_Pg_1.htm. As a copyright violation, Jim Diamond (Magician) appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Jim Diamond (Magician) has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Jim Diamond (Magician) and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Jim Diamond (Magician) with a link to where we can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Jim Diamond (Magician).

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. — 138.88.43.201 (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Diamond (Mega Genius)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jim Diamond (Mega Genius), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mega-genius.com/Mega_Genius_Biography_Pg_1.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, such as Jim Diamond (Mega Genius), you will be blocked from editing. Prolog (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Diamond (Mega Genius)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jim Diamond (Mega Genius), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mega-genius.com/Mega_Genius_Biography_Pg_1.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright violation

Look for "Offical Biographer: Kurt Roskopf" at the end of the Biography on the Weblink. I am the orginal author for this Biography and intend to use my existing work which I independently created from personal communication with Jim Diamond, which was used for the Website and have copyright permission from Jim Diamond to use the Biography as a contribution to Wikipedia.Mega Genius® Biography Deadalus821 (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow copyrighted text, please read Wikipedia:Copyrights for detailed information. In any case, articles need to be neutral and referenced with reliable, third-party, published sources. The subject's own website is neither neutral nor a third-party source. Please stop recreating the article. — jwillbur 05:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Deadalus821. You have new messages at Talk:Jim Diamond (Mega Genius).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MLauba (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant conflict of interest

Hello, Deadalus821 … by your own admission,

I am the independent author of the Mega Genius® Biography, which I create for Jim Diamond …

This is the very essence of WP:COI, which states:

Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers …

This is quite separate from the copyright violation issue, because it is still a primary source that cannot be considered "independent" by any definition … the point is that www.megagenius.com can never be considered a reliable source because it is by definition the subject's own words, albeit spoken with another person's voice.

Unless you can find some "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", Wkipedia will not allow the subject to have an article. Happy Editing! — 138.88.43.201 (talk · contribs) _{23:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Followup

If this subject does not have enough Attribution, then how can you expect that totally unreferenced article that you keep posting to survive? I mean, this subject got three paragraphs about their Mensa membership in Ebony (a WP:RS periodical available in supermarket checkout lines) that can be Verified by a trip to a local library to examine a microfiche copy, but all your subject has is their own word from their own website … BTW, I see that it has been salted to prevent recreation. <Sigh!> — 138.88.43.201 (talk · contribs) _{17:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jim Diamond (Mega Genius)

The article Jim Diamond (Mega Genius) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Only Google hit is self-promotional website (and press releases from said website). Article exists entirely of highly improbable claims without any independent secondary sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jim Diamond (Mega Genius)

A tag has been placed on Jim Diamond (Mega Genius), 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.

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), 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. ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Diamond (Magician)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jim Diamond (Magician), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mega-genius.com/Mega_Genius_Biography_Pg_1.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Prolog (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|It is my understanding that the purpose for the block was for repeated creation of a biography, which has been deleted on numerous occasions. The majority of my previous edits being deleted was part of my learning process for following Wikipedias’ polices as they were copyright violations and the biography did not have a completely neutral point of view, all quite valid.

Once I finally proved that I had copyright permission to Wikipedia and achieved a completely neutral point view (including the title) for the biography, the biography Jim Diamond (Magician) was speedily deleted unfairly and then the admin blocked me. It was deleted by the statement below.

The biography has a donated copyright permission to Wikipedia.

{{PermissionOTRS|2009082910026398}}

17:06, 4 October 2009 Prolog deleted "Jim Diamond (Magician)" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)

I presume the admin is referring to the general guidelines under notability rather than the subject-specific guidelines which is not a justified reason for a speedily deletion of a biography.  While the justification of a speedily delete falls under A7: No indication of importance: states “An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. That is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.”[1]  
While the admins’ reason appears quite different being related to notability guidelines rather than the statement of A7, if the admin had other reasons he/she should have made a proposed deletion and explained why.  The fact of the individuals’ accomplishments within his creative professions as well as holding the highest documented IQ certainly fits the description of worthy notice, which is the purpose of notability.  It is also understood that the notability guideline for “biographies” is not policy and is not grounds for the deletion of the biography.  Only an article pertaining to a person that is notable is, not a biography.[2]
Here is a continuation of my defense to be unblocked and for the biography that complies with Wikipedias’ policies.
I understand that the point of relying primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources help ensure that the information is verifiable, relevant and useful for the integrity of Wikipedia, where it is not fabricated.
The fact of an independent authors name at the end of the copyrighted verifiable referenced Mega Genius® Biography makes it a Secondary source where Jim Diamond is the Primary source thereby omitting it from the category of a self-published source.  It is unreasonable to attempt to invalidate a reliable source of information that comes from a company that has a professional staff to manage the website, customer service and its product. To say that I am not the author of my own work is unfair and disrespectful and one might as well invalidate every single independent author’s work that has copyright protection on a company website.  Pertaining to Wikipedia, using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies.
While this may appear to indicate a conflict of interest and because I have biases, it should have no significance as long as the revised biography has a neutral point of view with the help of any recommended changes from the Wikipedia community.
I understand a source too close to the subject can be considered to be a primary source, but is also acceptable under Wikipedia’s policies.  Even though I am a secondary source just as any reporters’, investigators’ or authors’ published work is about another person.

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. [3]

To summarize it all, I consider the block and deletion unfair, which had no reason for the recent speedy deletion and a good portion of my previous edits being deleted was part of my learning process for following Wikipedias’ polices as there were copyright violations and the biography did not have a completely neutral point of view, all quite valid.  It didn’t help when the article deleters didn’t specifically advise why or what changes should have been made so that they actually helped Wikipedia achieve it’s purpose not hinder it.  Because notability guidelines are not policy for biographies it is not a requirement, and the depth of coverage for the biography is already fully documented, therefore multiple independent sources are not required. [4]  The fact that the revised biography is completely within the bounds of Wikipedias policies and the authored work for Jim Diamonds’ website provides a verified and fully documented factual reference to ensure the Biography contributed to Wikipedia is accurate and not fabricated in anyway is what Wikipedia requires.  Trying to beat around the bush hinders Wikipedias’ purpose.  Unless all this is a mistake, here is where it becomes obvious of biased opposition against particular articles in direct opposition of Wikipedias’ purpose of massively categorizing a free flow of useful information, such biases within individuals should be a concern to the Wikipedia Community.  I hope that we can come to a fair an unbiased resolution to this matter.
Sincerely,
Kurt Roskopf

Deadalus821 (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

While the block was reasonable, its indefinite length may have been excessive.

Request handled by: Nyttend (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I'm considering unblocking, but I'm going to talk somewhat with Prolog first. Keep checking back until I make a reply. Nyttend (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per this comment by Prolog, I have no hesitation in unblocking you. Please understand that promotion of individuals, regardless of who they are, is a potential violation of some of our policies, so be especially careful to observe a neutral point of view. Because it appears that you believe that Jim Diamond is a valid subject for an article, you're free to file a deletion review. In case you're not familiar with this — Deletion Review is a place where you can appeal a deletion that you believe to have been carried out incorrectly. If you wish, I can restore the text in a subpage in your userspace; please leave a note on my talk page if you want me to do this. Nyttend (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. See User:Deadalus821/Jim Diamond. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry; I didn't move the information to Answers.com. I haven't a clue how to find who did. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for spamming or advertising. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Prolog (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were not given a second chance so you could continue using Wikipedia as a platform for advertising. Prolog (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Deadalus821 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In what way is an article, communicating a company's significant in society advertising? Wikipedia has an article about a company product of toothpicks and a variety of others. In addition I have provided numerous reliable, verifiable, and independent news sources that acknowledged the entire composition of that article itself over the course of multiple year’s acknowledging Mega Genius® previous held memberships in various high-IQ societies, including Mensa, the International Legion of Intelligence, and the Triple Nine Society as well as the 'Stupidest Statement Awards'. Did you review all of the sources or even read the note on the Discussion page? If I had to re-write the article about the company how would you do it? Within approximately a few minutes time from article creation you have deleted the article and blocked me without even discussing it with me. Help me create this article so that everyone will agree with its content Prolog. The last time a biographical article was re-created by the Wikipedia Community after a DRV review and was taken down, because of insufficient notability not because of advertisment, which I had resolved with the new article verifying the entire content of the article though multiple independent and reliable news sites.Deadalus821 (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Ok, let's get a few things straight. While single purpose accounts are not prohibited by policy we are all expected not to edit in areas where we have an inherent conflict if interest. It seems fairly clear at this point that you have a rather large conflict regarding Mega Genius. You seem intent on continuing to use Wikipedia to promote it. Your article was not deleted for being improperly sourced, it was deleted because it read like promotion. As you seem unable to write about it in the neutral point of view expected from an encyclopedia there is little point in unblocking you unless there is some other area you would like to edit in. Additionally, we do not use trademark or copyright symbols in article titles or text. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Deadalus821 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for clearing up a few things for me. It is not my intention to promote, I apologize if it appeared so and will not make any further distruptive edits. I will not make any edits or references regarding Mega Genius unless it has been approved by another admin in a work space inorder to achieve a neutral point of view. I would much rather create a workable article that the Wikipedia community can all agree on.Deadalus821 (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

On the contrary, you made it very clear that your sole purpose here to promote this person, and that you are unable to manage your conflict of interest. If there are no other topics you're interested in editing, I don't see any reason to expect that another unblock would lead to a different result. Kuru (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Deadalus821 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no reason why we can’t create a workable article together with help of multiple editors or administrators contributing in a group effort. Blaming me in an attempt to ostracize me solves nothing; instead focus your energy on helping a fellow editor to create a new workable article that communicates the significant of the Mega Genius Company in today’s society. Considering that the new article meets notability policy, which Beeblebrox and Prolog already agree with, it will be easy to re-write the article with a neutral point of view. I am more than willing to work with the other editors and administrators.

For my defense I will provide some provide some background information for clarification purposes. The first time Prolog blocked me was directly after his invalid speedily deletion of a Jim Diamond Biography. I was a newcomer and going through a repetitive trial and error approach to create an acceptable biography. The purpose of the block was to prevent me from recreating a biography that did not completely comply with Wikipedia’s policies. After I was unblocked, I worked with Prolog to create a new biography, as it still needed some work. The log of which can be seen here. After revisions were made to achieve a neutral point of view which Prolog approved, we still disagreed on the articles notability. I went to a deletion review. The speedily deletion was found invalid and the new revised article was moved to the main space knowing that the article did not completely satisfy notability; it was later deleted because sections of the biography did not have independent references to completely satisfy notability.

A year later I recreated a new article with the sole intent of achieving notability. The article and my edits were deleted, and I was blocked because of promotional wording in my edits.

On the block page it references a notice to communicate to the Administrator that placed the block in order to resolve the issue. Then I proceeded to communicate through email per the block referenced resolution notice. The use of email states that it is for confidential purposes and that it is better to use the users talk page. Therefore I posted the message that follows below on the users talk page to resolve the situation. The user Prolog never communicated his intentions to my actual question as to whether he will support Wikipedia with me, while I communicated my intentions and my willingness to cooperate with him and presented a revised article for his review and recommendations to achieve a neutral point of view.

His only response was on the IP page that I was in violation for evading my block for attempting to work with him by communicating a resolution to him on his talk page. It is obvious there is no policy against this as block evasion applies only to disruptive acts, as the very purpose of a block is only to prevent disruption and damage, not prevent acts of communicating resolutions. He also stated, “Evading a block to continue the same behaviour that led to the block and the declined unblock requests is even worse.” I understand the first part of the sentence and have no need for or interest in evading a block to continue the same behavior as I view it an unworkable solution, as mentioned in my resolution message to him. Prolog also unnecessary blocked the IP address I was operating from when there wasn’t anything disruptive or covert about my resolution message.

This is the following message that was deleted on Prologs’ talk page and his response.

==Mega Genius Article Creation==

Dear Prolog

I understand that you consider I am using Wikipedia to promote. It is not my direct intention to use Wikipedia as an advertisement platform, nor was it my intent for the sentence structure to have the appearance of a “promotional read”. My intention is to communicate the significance of the Mega Genius® Company within society.

I would also like you to know that you are welcome to edit the word structure or simply communicate to me that the sentence structure needs to be changed to achieve and neutral point of view for article creation.

With that being said we should put our pasts aside and continue our working relationship from where we left about a year ago, when we successfully created a biography together that had a neutral point of view. But it still had notability issues where I discontinued my creation of a Mega Genius Biography because sections of the biography where not referenced by independent sources. Recently I created a new article with a clear focus on satisfying the notability policy. So I only included word structure that was solely referenced within the media news sources. I would now like to focus on revising the article to achieve an appropriate word structure that the Wikipedia community will all agree on and will not create a new article until I have that support as I view it to be an unworkable solution. I would like you to work with me on creating the article and have revised the article with this objective in mind. Will you support Wikipedia with me to achieve this objective?

Sincerely,

Deadalus821

Original Article:

Mega Genius®, a registered trademark and service mark, is a pseudonym for Jim Diamond, known as “the man with the perfect IQ™".

Since January of 2004, Mega Genius® is most notably known for his annually released of the “Stupidest Statements Awards,” which he bestows on the famous for their misjudgments and misstatements, along with his previous held memberships in various high-IQ societies, including Mensa, the International Legion of Intelligence, and the Triple Nine Society. He has the highest level of intelligence measurable on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale -- Revised, the most modern and accurate intelligence test of the twenty-first century. He is the author of “The Mega Genius® Lectures,” an audio tool distributed worldwide for increasing intelligence.

Revised Article:

Mega Genius, a registered trademark and service mark, is owned by Jim Diamond, who also owns and represents an internet based Website Company by the same name, the objective of which is to increase the intelligence of human beings worldwide. The Company has been in operation since the year 2000.

Company Representative

Jim Diamond has the highest level of intelligence measurable on the Wechsler, the most modern and accurate intelligence test of the twenty-first century. He has held memberships in various high-IQ societies, including Mensa, the International Legion of Intelligence, and the Triple Nine Society. His memberships include Hall Of The Ancients, a high-IQ society of 30 members, which has an admission requirement of intelligence in the 99.99 percentile and an IQ of 160 or greater.

Products and Services

The Company’s primary products are audio recordings on the subject of wisdom, called “The Mega Genius® Lectures.”

Since 2001, the Company has also released dozens of intelligence briefings with titles ranging from The Great Mystery of Jack the Ripper to The Truth that You are Not Supposed to Know.

Annually, since January of 2004, the Company has released Jim Diamond’s “Stupidest Statements Awards,” which he bestows on the famous for their misjudgments and misstatements.

References

http://halloftheancients.weebly.com/ancients.html

(Additional reference to be added to existing list)

69.247.27.186 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prologs Response

Block evasion

The block on your user account applies to you, not just the account. Editing anonymously, even to just post a message to a user, is block evasion and not tolerated. Evading a block to continue the same behaviour that led to the block and the declined unblock requests is even worse. Prolog (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I previously initialized a working relationship with and worked with Prolog to successfully to create a biography that achieved a Neutral point of view, approximately a year ago, there was no reason why he couldn’t communicate to me to clean up the new article or place a cleanup flag, which had achieved notability requirements.

Considering that the last deletion discussion and article deletion was what I believe were notability issues and that the newly created article that satisfied notability was speedily deleted under G4, recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, for the article was an invalid deletion.

I cannot meaningful contributing to Wikipedia, when the individuals around me are more concerned with limiting my contribution or placing fault; rather they should be aiding me to create agreeable contributions for Wikipedia, not opposing or invalidating myself. Continuing these decisions of unhelpfulness and opposition for a specific article topic is an act of censorship and it is increasing evident that the Admin/user Prolog, due to his lack of cooperation and assistance to support Wikipedia, is more concerned with placing fault or pointing fingers (just remember three of those fingers are pointing at you) to use as a proxy for censorship. I would like to call attention to a statement from Jimmy Wales, the Wikipedia founder.

“We need to make a very careful distinction between censorship and editorial judgment. Censorship is forbidding the publication of certain knowledge. Editorial judgment [means asking], Are these facts relevant? Are they verifiable? Every entry has to be subject to thoughtful editorial judgment. But it’s never the case that we should accept censorship.”

[Time magazine, January 24, 2011 issue.]

I am not interesting in placing blame or pointing out the act of censorship, I did so only to communicate the situation and to defend myself and reputation. I have already admitted my own faults and acknowledged that the previous edits did have some promotional wording, which can easily be corrected. Putting the past aside and moving forward, I simply would like to come to a resolution on this matter while demonstrating that I can be helpful to Wikipedia. Are there any Wikipedian’s that are willing to support Wikipedia and work with me to create a new article that the community will all agree on? You are welcome to edit the new article. I am even willing to support the new article with the block in place and contribute from my talk page, just to prove a point. However, that would probably be entirely unnecessary at his point. Deadalus821 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It seems we have a stalemate. You are not going to be unblocked to continue doing the same thing – we tried that and it didn't work – but it seems you have no interest in writing about anything else. I'm revoking your talk page access since it seems that you're not going to make an unblock request that addresses the reason for your block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If you're still just planning to write about the same subject, why are you using the unblock request template? You already know that you aren't going to be writing about that subject, and as far as I can tell you aren't interested in writing about anything else, so why do you need an active account? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]