User talk:Grafofoni

January 2008

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to John and Ken. Thank you. Gwernol 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for addition of defamatory material. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gwernol 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwernol 23:03, 15 January 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

This blocking makes no sense. I am adding legit information from a former KFI host who has information about the John and Ken Show and KFI. It comes DIRECLY from John Zielger who hosted a show in KFI from 2004 to 2007. To not allow it is censorship, pure and simple. You may check it out link redacted

Decline reason:

Wikipedia does not permit the addition of unsourced or poorly sourced claims about a living person. Further, your additions were clearly inflammatory, as opposed to an unbiased reporting of the facts. If this is true and significant, you should be able to source it with a reliable secondary source, meaning, from a newspaper/magazine/journal/etc not directly connected to the situation. — B (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Again this makes no sense. You are not even allowing me to put a link to John Ziegler's web site. He is an eyewitness. He was there. You are engaging in censorship.

Decline reason:

As per below. — Yamla (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2008 (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 may wish to review Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, designed in large part to avoid problems with libel and slander laws. The particular material you're adding is highly contentious and potentially abusive -- extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and doubly so in cases involving real people with real lives. If your only sourcing is a personal website (hosted by a party in the dispute, no less), then it's pretty clear that this is not the sort of reliable sourcing that would be needed in a matter of this potentially sensitive nature. Is there mainstream media coverage or other attention to these claims, aside from Ziegler's site? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Barr

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sharon Barr, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://onlinetvseries.me/people/16431-sharon-barr.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sharon Barr

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 Sharon Barr, 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 a clear copyright infringement of http://onlinetvseries.me/people/16431-sharon-barr. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

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 "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. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Hello, Grafofoni. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Sharon Barr, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Sharon Barr, you may be blocked from editing. John from Idegon (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:John from Idegon. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. 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 ~~~~}}.

With the exception of one edit, all of your edits have either been deleted, or violated either our biographies of living persons policy or our no personal attacks policy, or were straight vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]