User talk:Fpi007

Hello Fpi007, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. --role^player 19:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ariel Investigations, Inc.[edit]

A tag has been placed on Ariel Investigations, Inc. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, 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. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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. CardinalDan (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter F. Paul[edit]

The Peter F. Paul page is scrupulously researched and footnoted. Your replacing it with a page that omits or minimizes his various criminal convictions, while removing all footnotes, is of no help. We welcome constructive edits, but please stop repeatedly pasting this hagiography over the text of the article. Uucp (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011[edit]

Your addition to Peter F. Paul has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content, as you did at Peter F. Paul‎. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:46, 1 September 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).

Fpi007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a licensed Private Investigator who has been hired by Peter F. Paul who is the individual that this page is about. I would like to appeal based on the fact that this page has been hijacked by forces who’s intent is to discredit the accomplishments that have been corroborated and the legal situation that has been mischaracterized- I have authorization as a PI to correct the errors and failure of wikipedia to permit corrections PI Becky (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your statement indicates that unblocking your account will continue to result in editing that egregiously contravenes our conflict of interest guideline, removes clearly sourced and encyclopedic information, and violates our copyright policy. Kinu ^t/_c 22:50, 1 September 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).

Fpi007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Then you are allowing some unknown person to write half truth which goes against your policy. Please remove me from being unblocked so that I may upate my own pagesPI Becky (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:53, 2 September 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.

You also seemed to have changed your story between requests. Are you Mr. Paul himself or a private investigator hired by him from prison? Not sure it really matters at this point but if you are gong to lie remember to be consistent. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also somewhat concerned/confused by this. I've blocked the other account until all this is sorted out. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:30, 2 September 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).

Fpi007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No, I am not going to attempt to make any changes to Peter F. Paul's page. It is obvious how it will turn out. The reason for editing the page was because not all of the information was correct. I was just adding information. Wikipedia has blocked me before hearing the truth. This article and talk page on Peter F. Paul must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. That is what you have also indicated on his talk page. So please review it and please unblock me. I will not attempt to make any editing to the Peter F. Paul page however I would appreciate it if you could look into this matter and have the page deleted since the information is potentially libelous to Mr. PaulPI Becky (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree with Beeblebrox's comment below. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 2 September 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.

The article has 63 references attached which verify the basic facts of Mr. Paul's various criminal convictions, including verification that he is a federal prisoner [1]. You repeatedly replaced it with a massive copyright violation, and now you are coming dangerously close to making a legal threat. You are moving farther from being unblocked with each successive request, you might want to review the guide to appealing blocks if you want to be allowed to continue appealing in this manner, or your talk page may be revoked. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:30, 2 September 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).

Fpi007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I appear to be saying all of the wrong words or you are interrupting them incorrectly. I am not a avid user of Wikipedia and I did not know I was violating any copyright policies. Again, please unblock me. I promise not to edit anything that is on the Peter F. Paul page.PI Becky 14:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You continued posting copyright-infringing material after you had been warned about doing so, so "I did not know" is not convincing. However, as far as I am concerned, far more important is that fact that both your editing history and what you have said in your various unblock requests make it clear that you edit with a strong conflict of interest, and with the intention of suppressing well-sourced material which is unfavourable to you or your client or whatever your latest version is. Wikipedia does not exist to publish the version which the subject of an article wants to publicise. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:10, 2 September 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).

Fpi007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is obvious that I will not be unblocked no matter what I say so I will take it up elsewhere. Thank youPI Becky 19:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:38, 2 September 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).

Fpi007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please delete my pages for Becky Altringer and Ariel Investigations. I will delete my account. Thank you. PI Becky 19:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I will add a WP:PROD to the articles - make that an AfD, someone objected to PROD. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:38, 2 September 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.

Accounts cannot be deleted for technical (no means in MediaWiki) and legal (licensing requirements) reasons. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Becky Altringer[edit]

The article Becky Altringer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Blocked User:Fpi007 requests (on their talk page) to delete, and claims to be the author _ probably true.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Becky Altringer for deletion[edit]

{{unblock I have not tried to invade. I really have not been able to understand why I can't make changes when your pages are incorrect? I started another name because I was not able to figure anything out. It was not meant to be dishonest. I did not know that I was not able to post new links or stories about people or business. I honestly did not know what I was doing because I was too lazy to read your policy. Please give me another chance and help me understand instead of punishing me. I promise to read the policy before making anymore changes.}}

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Becky Altringer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Becky Altringer (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]