User talk:Stephensboy

Andrew Stephens will continue to CENSOR his own words and actions.

June 2011

Hello Stephensboy. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Andrew Stephens, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike,

Thank you for this update. To clarify on the article, it was written by Michelle Kellison and Michael Medcalf and edited by myself, neither party is related to me (Michelle is my fiance however and bears 2 of my children & Michael is a lifelong friend). I did make edits as the article had some redundant wording. I should have used caution due to it being an article pertaining me and will not make such an error again.

I have been contacted by several supporter who will be submitting statements. These are real-life supporters that know me and my work/family from life in general and colleagues that have worked with me at several locations.

Your advise is greatly appreciated and I will not make any further edits on my own article. How should I handle libel and malicious attacks that are certain to come from the Usenet Nanae group. These attacks are typically always isolated to a group of 10-12 people that have a different political opinion and have resorted to personal smear attacks to damage me online. Andrew Stephens Stephensboy (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but Wikipedia is not the place to defend yourself against internet trolls. However, your article is likely to be deleted, as it fails most of the standards for notability as set out here. I did several searches on terms in the article:

"Andrew Stephens" "Verum Media Group" - only 14 unique results, none from reliable publications.
"Andrew Stephens" "Integrated Business Technologies" - only 67 unique results, none from reliable publications.
"Andrew Stephens" "Mail Mascot" - only 97 unique results, none from reliable publications.

Yes, you seem to have a lot of people mad about or targeting you, if some of the results are to be believed - I'm not judging them or you, I'm just looking at the specifics, as it relates to a Wikipedia article, and I don't see how (at this time) that article can remain. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, with all do respect, being "believed" by a group of less than a dozen, regardless of their common bond, does not entitle their beliefs to be fact. Any reasonable journalist would obtain data from parties outside of the conflict to find an accurate description of the person. If an entry is desired reflecting outside opinion of the specific conflict between myself and the Nanae group, then that seems fair, but to disregard true fact in light of manipulation by a single group of people is not acceptable and produces the results that smear-campaigners desire. I guess the true question is, do all people deserve the right to protest, be activists, and strive to reach the people with their ideas and allow the people a great resource for individual interpretation? My answer to that is "yes", no single person should be profiled by a group of politically opposing people. And as the Wikipedia Deletion Page states: "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it."

Andrew Stephens Stephensboy (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Andrew Stephens "Real Life Supports" are Blackhat Bulk emailers, and the rest are sockpuppets he has created to increase his own sense of self-importance. Guy Serge Tremblay (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Please Note:[reply]

Wikipedia Vandalism by Andrew Stephens. Vandalism of Wikiperia pages: "The Spamhaus Project" and "Steve Linford".

in Revision history of Steve Linford, Mr. Stephens with IP proxy of: 83.170.109.106 did vandalism Steve Lindford's Wiki page 6 times. Mr. Stephens opening admits to this on the usenet group: news.admin.net-abuse.email. His home IP (rr.com) is: 96.11.195.139 He somehow is obsessed that RBL lists are controlled and email is censored by the UK and Canadian Governments. VerumLies (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)VT[reply]

(cur | prev) 07:36, 12 June 2011 80.58.205.44(talk) (4,318 bytes) (reverted due to vandalism by Ohio spammer Andrew Stephens (a spammer listed on Spamhaus ROKSO)) (undo) (cur | prev) 01:50, 12 June 2011 83.170.109.106(talk) (5,764 bytes) (→Acclaim) (undo) (cur | prev) 22:49, 11 June 2011 83.170.109.106(talk) (5,757 bytes) (→List of Crimes Steve Linford/Spamhaus are Under Investigation for:) (undo) (cur | prev) 22:49, 11 June 2011 83.170.109.106(talk) (5,758 bytes) (→List of Crimes Steve Linford and Spamhaus are being investigated for:) (undo) (cur | prev) 22:48, 11 June 2011 83.170.109.106(talk) (5,761 bytes) (→Crimes Against Individuals:) (undo) (cur | prev) 22:48, 11 June 2011 83.170.109.106(talk) (5,762 bytes) (→Criminal Offenses:) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:51, 11 June 2011 83.170.109.106(talk) (5,768 bytes) (added section for unlisted crimes) (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)

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 could 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) 18:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the Andrew Stephens

I am disappointed in Wikpedia for allowing a biography to be deleted due to attacks from Nanae members. It shows a complete disregard for media awareness and demonstrates censorship at it core. I pray that the people of the internet fight against censorship and targeted libel online (cyber-bullying), yet Wikipedia has embraced the cyber-bullying phenomenon by allowing cyber-bullies to control the media based on their own propaganda. Shame on you Wikipedia, you are supposed to be the voice of the people...not against them!

Stephensboy:Andrew Stephens Stephensboy (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article was deleted because you failed to show any real claims of notability. Had you done so, or come up with references that showed you as the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the you, the article stood a good chance of being kept. If this site was being used against you, other editors would not have removed the court cases against you that some WP:SPA editors added. Frankly, what this appears to be is that you're upset that you weren't allowed to use this site as a promotional tool. However, no one is, and many other articles are deleted every day for similar reasons. If a subject is notable, unconnected editors will create an article about them - it's not your place to write (or have your associates write) articles about yourself or things which you have a conflict of interest in. The same would apply if your detractors were to try and create an attack article about you - that would be deleted as well.

One final note - as the original talk page was deleted along with the article, I'll make one point clear here.You need to read over the guidelines at WP:CIVIL - any attempts to attack other editors personally or assign nefarious motives to their actions without proof will NOT be looked upon kindly. Remember to assume good faith when dealing with others. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Libel]