User talk:Visionat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Text of 3 April 2013 Notice for Speedy Deletion of "GNU C-Graph"[edit]

This is the notice with which "GNU C-Graph" was tagged by Wikipedia administrators on 3 April 2013:

This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote an entity, person or product, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. However, the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is an article's subject does not, on its own, qualify that article for deletion under this criterion. Nor does this criterion apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the

tag to alert others to do so. See CSD G11.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23G11%7CG11%5D%5D%3A+Unambiguous+%5B%5BWP%3AADS%7Cadvertising%5D%5D+or+promotionG11

If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page, and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message, explaining why you believe this article should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.

Note that once tagged with this notice, the page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient. Note to page author: you have not edited the article talk page yet. If you wish to contest this speedy deletion, clicking the button above will allow you to leave a talk page message explaining why you think this page should not be deleted. If you have already posted to the talk page but this message is still showing up, try purging the page cache.

Administrators: check links, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google: web, news. This page was last edited by Gold Standard (contribs | logs) at 03:17 UTC (0 seconds ago)

   Please consider placing the template:
   ==Speedy deletion nomination of GNU C-Graph==
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on GNU C-Graph, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, Speedy delete contest button.svg. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Visionat (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

   on the talk page of the author.

April 2013[edit]

Hello, Visionat. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article GNU C-Graph, you should consider our guidance on Conflicts of interest and take a look at the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • 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.
  • Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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. Gold Standard 03:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

3 April 2013[edit]

Please post all messages on Talk:GNU_C-Graph

As the cited references, which point to statements by public agencies and officials clearly show, the article GNU C-Graph complies fully with Wikipedia's policies on Conflicts of interest, neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

As I suggested earlier, your apparent racial agenda - complicit with the intent of the regime of apartheid - is a gross conflict of interest with Wikipedia policy. Visionat (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Talk:GNU C-Graph. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


Hello Visionat. I have deleted GNU C-Graph and wanted to expain why I have done so. First of all, to be included in Wikipedia, subjects need to have received coverage in independent sources - as far as I can tell this is not the case. Second, based on your signature here you created the software and therefore have a conflict of interest and it is highly advised that you do not create articles where you have a COI. I was also concerned that a large portion of the article was making accusations against others without suitable references - we have a strict policy that potentially libelous information about living people must be removed immediately. Finally, you appear to have been using multiple accounts (Adriennegt and which is forbidden. I'm sorry to throw so many policies at you and I am happy to explain any in more detail if you would like. Thank you SmartSE (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


You do not appear to have a legitimate reason for deleting the page. The article "GNU C-Graph" does have coverage from independent sources. Firstly, it is independently a GNU package, and secondly the material - on theft, racial discrimination and apartheid - to which I believe is what you really object- is covered by documents published by public authorities cited in the text.

The defendants attacks are ongoing. They hack into my computer on an on going basis. I was unable to log into my usual visionat account, so I created adriennegt and switched back as soon as I was able to log in as visionat again. I then discontinued use of adriennegt.

AFAIK, the fact that I am the author of the software does not prohibit my writing the Wikipedia entry, and again is not a reason for the deleting the page. Had you read the article, you would have seen that the references are appropriate to Wikipedia policy. I was in the process of including such further suitable references when you deleted the page. The implication is that you seek to protect these references - concerning evidence of the crime of apartheid by eminent defendants - from public scrutiny.

It is your own actions that are in conflict with Wikipedia policy. Visionat (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that that is the case. The vast majority of the references cited were written by you and all of the secondary sources cited were written before it was released two years ago. GNU packages don't have special privileges here just because Wikipedia is also free. You are right that the accusations are what I found most troublesome and that tipped the balance in terms of me deciding to delete it - whilst not strictly covered by policies, I acted in the spirit of the rules. Whatever your own problems, Wikipedia is not here for you to tell the world about them. SmartSE (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
You found the information on race and apartheid "troublesome" only because you are racist yourself. Exposing evidence of racism is always "troublesome" for racists. This is not a personal attack as you, yourself, have made that fact clear. Most software packages have a section on "History" for which the secondary sources in the case of the article you deleted are appropriate and reliable. It will not escape public attention that you deleted the page just as I was adding further evidence from such secondary sources. You did not act in the spirit of the Wikipedia rules at all, but in the spirit of preserving racism - and against Wikipedia policy, as your actions only served to protect the international criminal enterprise responsible for maintaining a regime of apartheid.
I shall be communicating with Wikipedia for advice on how to protect the "GNU C-Graph" article from further racial attacks and pro-apartheid Wikipedians.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionat (talkcontribs)
Ok. I'll ask some other administrators to take a look at this discussion and see whether they think I made the right decision. SmartSE (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_review_of_speedy_delete. SmartSE (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll make my own inquiries with Wikipedia's management. As everyone can become a Wikipedia editor, it's just not possible for Wikipedia to screen or control their editors, particularly when they are being influenced by professors (defendants) from eminent universities.

Block warning[edit]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Don't call Smartse, or anybody else, a racist again or you will be blocked for a good long time. Bishonen | talk 23:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC).

Thanks for volunteering the evidence. I shall be communicating with Wikipedia on the matter of the article "GNU C-Graph" through more appropriate channels. Visionat (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Original Message[edit]

As you deleted the Talkpage for GNU C-Graph, I am posting my original message here for others to see:

Please post all replies and related messages to this Talk page.

Contested deletion[edit]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...

As you point out, yourselves, "the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is an article's subject does not, on its own, qualify that article for deletion under this criterion".

If this were the case, then all Wikipedia articles on software would qualify for deletion. The fact that the article "GNU C-Graph" has been targeted for deletion is no more than a reflection of the fraudulent award of zero to the Dissertation that constitutes the unique subject's underlying work. Accordingly, this comes as no surprise when in fact the content of the article "GNU C-Graph" bears encyclopedic credentials well beyond that for Wikipedia's existing articles in the software category - as the development of GNU C-Graph chronicles an historic international criminal transaction seeking to preserve the crime of apartheid in universities.

Deletion of the article would evidently serve only the interests of the eminent criminal enterprise, complicit with the cover-up of the crimes. Such an overtly racially discriminatory act would be - at the very least - a flagrant abuse of Wikipedia's policies. -- (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification of deletion[edit]

I have deleted your userpage version of GNU C-Graph as well. As Smartse pointed out at the help desk, "promotional" was far from the only issue with the article; it's an attack page, and I've deleted it per WP:BLP. Wikipedia doesn't host attack pages in article space, userspace, or anywhere else. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC).

Who is/are the article attacking? Are the secondary sources which include international and public agencies and officials themselves presenting reliable facts on theft, racial discrimination and apartheid that are self-attacking? The user page you deleted included additional citations to such reliable secondary sources providing further verification to the facts cited in the article.
Perhaps you need to articulate the issues that you claim justify the deletion to help those who are viewing this conversation (and there are many) better understand why an historic case on apartheid in universities - moreover one subject to a blanket cover-up by national and international law enforcement authorities - should be excluded from Wikipedia. What are Wikipedia's policies concerning racial discrimination and articles on racial discrimination? Visionat (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I really doubt that very many people are viewing this conversation here on your page, but Smartse has already told you above that the deletion of your article is being discussed on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I don't understand why you don't take part in it, and state your case there. Here's Smartse's link again: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_review_of_speedy_delete. There doesn't seem to be much point in "articulating the issues" with you here on your talk, when there is a more public forum available, which many administrators and others do watch. Bishonen | talk 18:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC).

Copy of Discussion from Admininistrators' Notice Board[edit]

The discussion below has now been deleted from:'_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_review_of_speedy_delete . It took a number of attempts to copy the discussion to this page as each time I tried to paste the text, my browser would suddenly close!

Just for info: it was not so much "deleted" as "archived", as is automatic when there have been no comments for 36 hours, and is now permanently available at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive791#Requesting_review_of_speedy_delete. PamD 18:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank's for the link PamD. At the rate things were going, I fully expected the admins to zap this talk page. It's good to know there are Wikipedia administrators around with a cool head. I'll be working on GNU C-Graph over the next few days and will get back to more senior Wikipedia admins who are a more balanced with credible and specific advice to give. It is a tricky article to write. Except for FreeRangeFrog please tell the ones on this page not to cross my path again.Visionat (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at User_talk:Visionat#Problems? I deleted GNU C-Graph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) following this help desk post, explained to the editor why I did and now I have been accused of "preserving racism" and being a "pro-apartheid Wikipedian". The article wasn't entirely promotional, but I felt confident that most admins would also have deleted it on sight. SmartSE (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't see deleted content, but the reaction and claims about discrimination (apartheid? what?) are excessive at best and indicative of larger issues than just having had an article deleted. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
See User:Visionat/C-Graph.--Auric talk 23:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I've warned the user that they'll be blocked for a good long time if the very nasty personal attacks continue. Maybe I should have blocked straight off, but what can I say, I'm a milquetoast admin. I'm also going to bed now; I hope somebody else will in fact block for a good long time if the nonsense continues. Nobody should have to put up with that crap. Bishonen | talk 23:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC).
OK, thanks for that. So just a heads up, there's this. Might want to take it into consideration when dealing with her. Apparently her fiancee was murdered by an international racism conspiracy, allegedly tied to the University of Aberdeen, to prevent development of a GNU graphing package. There's also a website, which I shall not link to, that documents a bunch of other stuff, including accusations about other international conspiracies involving MIT academics. I believe care should be exercised when dealing with this person. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there was anything wrong with the speedy deletion. Vision can request review in the normal channels if she doesn't like it. But her reactions point her out as someone who may be fundamentally incapable of collaborative editing. I'll definitely be keeping an eye on how this evolves. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This article is part promotion, part allegation/soapboxing about alleged criminal activities ("As may be inferred from the University's non-disclosure in breach of its obligations under the DPA,[44] the conclusive evidence adduced is not amenable to challenge. The continuing cover-up relies on...") and very little actual third-party, RS coverage about the nominal subject of the article. Whether or not DRV would overturn a speedy nomination, I'd likely !vote delete at an AFD. Resolute 00:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. If I did make the right call though, User:Visionat/C-Graph should also be deleted as it is exactly the same as what I deleted. I'd prefer that someone else took care of it, but if someone doesn't soon I'll delete it. I'm not happy with us hosting material with essentially unsourced accusations of theft, racism and forgery. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The page is no more acceptable in userspace. Wikipedia will not host attack pages anywhere. I've deleted it. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC).
Thanks. SmartSE (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Bishonen just reminded me about this forum. Had you taken the time to read the impugned article - and the sources - you would have been able to verify that the allegations are reliably sourced. The live page was deleted as I was adding such further sources. As I indicated on my talk page deletion of the article evidently serves only the interests of the eminent criminal enterprise and the continuing cover-up. That being the case, I am not surprised regarding the deletion of the page in my userspace, which included even further citations of verifiable evidence.
Anyone can become a Wikipedia editor or administrator. So Wikipedia has a few problems? [User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] claims my GNU C-Graph is an attack page. Who is/are the article attacking? Are the secondary sources which include international and public agencies and officials themselves presenting reliable facts on theft, racial discrimination and apartheid that are self-attacking? The user page you deleted included additional citations to such reliable secondary sources providing further verification to the facts cited in the article. Who benefits by covering up the information elucidated by these sources?
Perhaps you need to articulate the issues that you claim justify the deletion to help those who are viewing this conversation (I am sending messages) better understand why an historic case on apartheid in universities - moreover one subject to a blanket cover-up by national and international law enforcement authorities - should be excluded from an article in Wikipedia with verifiable secondary sources. What are Wikipedia's policies concerning racial discrimination - and censorship of articles on racial discrimination and their authors? Visionat (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Bluntly, notability is an issue beyond the fact that the article existed for the dual purpose of promoting this software and attacking the alleged theft (unproven) and coverup (unproven). Of the 47 inline references (not all of which are citations), 24 go back to Thompson herself. Several have absolutely nothing at all to do with either Thompson or this software (notably the two articles complaining about the ICC and several about mathematical formulas), and the rest are pretty much letters and responses to allegations. There is, as far as I can tell, not a single reliable, third party, neutral, non-trivial source about the nominal subject of that article, the "GNU C-Graph". The response I posted above after my first glance was far too charitable to your position. This article was little more than a soapbox to continue your campaign against the University. Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs, and unless significant third-party, independent, reliable coverage can be shown, this is definitely an obvious speedy delete. Resolute 23:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Given the obvious bias, it would be a waste of my time to continue discussions here. I have software to develop and further criminal complaints to draft. I am now completing the citations in the article and will resolve the issue through more appropriate channels at Wikipedia. All the citations are concerned with the software as the theft of the associated rights is crime underlying the commission of apartheid. The software and it's underlying dissertation are at the heart of the issue. Obviously, an encyclopedia cannot of itself "right great wrongs", but it can assist in the perpetration of such wrongs by concealing encyclopedic facts from the public. I am obviously accustomed to pedestrian reactions to any mention of "racial discrimination". "Biased" is far too charitable a description for your actions. As I said, I don't have the time to waste here. Visionat (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok you seem to miss the general point everyone is trying to raise; if you feel there should be an article about something it must be covered by reliable third party sources to meet notability requirements. There isn't a "more appropriate channel" if you can't meet that basic requirement for an article to exist. If notability can be established legal action could be mentioned, again if covered by RS, then it has to be neutral. The extent you could say that currently there are legal proceedings from party x against party y for z. It wouldn't accuse someone of theft or try to write anything as fact - once a ruling is provided that can be added but even then if the ruling is not in favor it would still need to be reported. Reiterating your borderline (and in cases overboard) attacks isn't going to help you get people to adopt your point of view because all you are doing is setting up a toxic atmosphere. If it is truly something you want to see covered you would need at least a couple of RS to start and then mark it as a stub for someone to work on if they ever decide to, or yourself if you have time. Waving your hands wildly without providing materials to ensure that people can say it meets the basic requirements for an article and then trying to demean everyone that shows you why the article doesn't meet these things isn't helping. Tivanir2 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what the truth of your allegations are, but I do know that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and if secondary sources aren't available, then this is not encyclopedic material as Wikipedia defines it. You can accuse me of bias and throw out boogeyman claims like "apartheid" if you like, but you asked for someone to articulate why this artcile merited deletion and I obliged. Throwing down meritless accusations (both overt and implied) of nefarious intent on my part while refusing to respond to the substance of my comments does not serve as a reasonable defence of your position. The simple truth is that we cannot write a neutral article if the only sources available flow through you. Resolute 22:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Visionat (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

COI Notice for draft article “GNU C-Graph”[edit]

This is to declare a conflict of interest under Wikipedia's Conflicts of Interest Policy in accordance with your Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, section 3(3), and to request reinstatement of the deleted article “GNU C-Graph” amended and uploaded to my user sandbox.

I argue that:

  1. The summary deletion was contrary to Wikipedia's policy on deletion;
  2. The deletion was motivated by bias; and
  3. The amended article complying with Wikipedia's policies should be reinstated.

COI and Deletion[edit]

I am the author of the software package "GNU C-Graph" and the author of the draft article of the same name. While Wikipedia discourages the creation and editing of articles by authors closely connected with the subject, doing so is not prohibited; nor was I aware of the relevance of the COI policy until 3 April 2013, when the newly created article was “speedily deleted” (see [[User:Talk:Visionat#April_2013| message from User:Gold Standard]]. The purported criterion for deletion stated that the article appeared “to be written like an advertisement” serving “only to promote an entity, person or product”.

The Administrators' Breach of Policy was Motivated by Bias[edit]

An objective reading of the deleted GNU C-Graph article would reveal that its content sought not to advertise, but to present verifiable factual information and evidence substantiating assertions that define the history of the software (typical software articles in Wikipedia devote a section to history). Rather than being promotional, the description of the software seeks to underscore its technical significance in the field as recommended in Wikipedia:NSOFTWARE. As I pointed out in the ensuing deletion discussion, Wikipedia's articles on software are all inherently promotional. Accordingly, the stated deletion criterion of promotion/advertising gives the appearance of bias.

The conduct of the administrators, which demonstrated (among other things) a lack of competence in matters of law, gave priority to responses comporting with bias: threats to block me for “a good long time”, disparaging remarks such as “soapboxing” and “boogeyman” claims. They failed to articulate what I have identified as the only breach of policy in the article – that although information likely to be challenged cited documents distributed by public authorities and public officials, the definition of “published” within the meaning of Wikipedia policy on verifiability pertains to sources distributed and accessible by the general public, not just individuals (see Wikipedia's definition of published in Wikipedia:Published, section 1.1.

It is evident from the amended draft article that under Wikipedia's Policy on Deletion, the administrators were obliged to first consider alternatives to deletion, and could simply have edited the article to remove proscribed content: “If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.”

I submit that the administrators' breach of policy was motivated by a root contention that the evidence of racial discrimination exposed in the deleted article (particularly under the section “Theft Apartheid and Obstruction of Justice”) publicized the theft of rights in respect of software authored by a black woman. The summary deletion of the article for reasons pertaining only to ancillary background content corroborates the showing of bias already made apparent by the criterion noted for speedy deletion.

The Amended draft article[edit]

I've now had an opportunity to peruse Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, conflict of interest, and neutral point of view, with which I believe the amended draft article complies:

”Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article”.
  • Verifiability and No Original Research
    1. The engineering theory illustrated in the article is verified by the 6 independent, third party secondary, reliable sources listed under "References". There is consensus that the majority of these academic and text book sources are among the best in the field. See the guideline on verifiability section 2.1.
    2. WP:V section 1, “Burden of Evidence”: ”[A]ny material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source ...” Accordingly, all material citing secondary sources falling outside Wikipedia's definition of “published” has been removed.
    3. With regard to any primary source material included in the draft article, I have noted the following policy elements:
      • WP:PRIMARY:”A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge”.
      • Wikipedia:IS#Summary:”Material available from sources that are self-published, or primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article ...”

I look forward to your comments - and action.

Adrienne Gaye Thompson Visionat (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


This is to protest the misconceived, self-evidently unwarranted block imposed. Implicit in Wikipedia's "assume good faith" WP:AGF and other policies, is the Wikimedia Foundation's duty to ensure that those who wear the badge of "administrator" conduct themselves in accordance with professional and ethical standards governing services to the public. These include standards recognised by professional entities, national legislation, and international conventions. Recognition of the common practice of victimizing a person as a result of complaints related to bias is enshrined in the various instruments of national and international law - and is itself a violation of WP:AGF - to say the least. I regard further comments in this section as unnecessary, and therefore not worth my time.Visionat Visionat (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As discussed on ANI, you have been blocked for 24 hours for failure to WP:AGF and instead make a personal attack against the admin. If this continues an indef block should be implemented. Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What personal attack was this? And on which admin? Visionat (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Among others,[1]

I submit that the administrators' breach of policy was motivated by a root contention that the evidence of racial discrimination exposed in the deleted article (particularly under the section “Theft Apartheid and Obstruction of Justice”) publicized the theft of rights in respect of software authored by a black woman.

If you'd like, I can also add WP:RGW to the list of reasons you were blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Toddst1, I think you need to re-read that sentence you quoted very carefully. It's a monster of a chain of prepositional phrases and relative clauses, but when you actually parse it it doesn't make a personal attack. Adrienne is saying that the administrators deleted her article because it presented (alleged) evidence of racial discrimination, and that this evidence served to publicize a crime. And she's more or less correct here: the original article was deleted because it did accuse specific living individuals or institutions of illegal behaviour arising from racism. (And of course the administrators were correct to delete it on those grounds, as WP:BLP prevents us from posting negative material about people which isn't solidly supported by reliable sources.) In the portion of the appeal you quote she is not accusing administrators of racism. There may be other good reasons justifying a block in this case, but the sentence you quote isn't it. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Psychonaut, Thanks again for your interest. If the admins' reactions seem overboard to you there is an explanation. There is much going on behind the scenes. I have no doubt that the defendants are doing what they've always done since 1983. Defendants, or others acting on their behalf, are calling the admins to (dis)inform them that I am not the author of the software. Since I left MIT in 1992, they've been using a black professor there to front for them; the strategy is very effective. It is unfortunate that they've found so much support; somehow, I thought that FLOSS and like-minded projects would be different. Drop me an email, if you're interested in ever seeing GNU C-Graph in Wikipedia so I can have a little discussion with you away from here.Visionat (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Visionat, going around insisting that everyone who disagrees with you is part of a conspiracy is not going to get you anywhere. Wikipedia is a collaborative project - you are either willing to work in good faith with other volunteers, or you can go somewhere else. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Visionat, no, I don't think that the administrators' actions were overboard. When they originally deleted the article, that was done in accordance with the relevant policies here. The subsequent block for "personal attacks" would not have been excessive had you actually said what Toddst1 thought you did. I think, however, that this was a good-faith misunderstanding on his part, and I'm disappointed that he has not yet acknowledged this. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Psychonaut. His failure to acknowledge is a flag pointing to the bias asserted by my complaint. As my complaint argues, the deletion was contrary to Wikipedia Policy on Deletion, section 2.1 and to the practices determining notability set out in WP:NSOFT. You disagree and I won't further the argument at this juncture, particularly as it has been shown, by others, that my responses are susceptible to misinterpretation followed by actions and promises to deny the rights to edit normally enjoyed by the general public.
Parse my words carefully, they are not personal attacks, but approaches employed in more formal forums concerned with dispute resolution and other complaints against behaviour that is contrary to rules, regulations, and legislation. Thanks again Psychonaut, but I really need to go now. I have formal criminal complaints to conclude, webpages to write, images to edit, code to write for the next release of GNU C-Graph, and much planning to do. Please See my notice below the caption of this section.Visionat (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd guess that his lack of response is a flag pointing not to bias but rather to a planned absence for the weekend. (I glanced at his contributions just now, and it seems he last edited Wikipedia only about ten minutes after your block. So he might not have even seen my message yet.) If you change your mind and decide to stick around, you'll find the atmosphere here to be much more collegial if you assume good faith in your dealings with other editors here. Best of luck with your GNU project; thanks for supporting free software and free content! —Psychonaut (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

References to GNU C-Graph[edit]

Long before I wrote the proposed article "GNU C-Graph", I included references under the articles Convolution theorem and Convolution for the benefit of students and their professors teaching and learning about convolution. These references were removed by MrOllie and Hu12. Notwithstanding my belief that GNU C-Graph meets the WP:Notability criteria, Mark viking pointed out "external links aren't required to be WP notable, just relevant".

Most reasonable people would agree that removing the reference to the only software that easily demonstrates the convolution theorem would be a disservice to the public. The text of the references reads:

Under Convolution#External_links:

  • GNU C-Graph, a free software package for visualizing the convolution theorem, and displaying signals with their spectral plots.

Under Convolution_theorem#Additional_resources:

  • GNU C-Graph, a free software package for demonstrating the convolution theorem, and displaying signals with their spectral plots.

No doubt some WP:AGF administrator will recognise the educational value and reinstate the references for the benefit of the public.Visionat (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Visionat, the places for these discussions are Talk:Convolution theorem and Talk:Convolution, not your own talk page. Those pages are also where you should have suggested the addition of links to the software you have written, bearing in mind WP:COI: to avoid any interpretation that you are promoting your own software, you should suggest the addition of the links on the talk page and allow independent editors (not necessarily administrators) to decide whether the links are an asset to the articles. If you look at WP:COIU, you will see that an editor with a possible conflict of interest may "make edits where there is clear consensus on the talk page (though it is better to let someone else do it)". That's the way to go. It's nothing personal, so your talk page is not the place for the discussion. I hope that helps. PamD 14:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again PamD. Despite appearances, I am pretty much a Wikipedia newbie. I am also weary and about to get some rest for the next round of battles on the horizon.:)
Visionat (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Visionat/sandbox[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg User:Visionat/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Visionat/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Visionat/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

File:GNU C-Graph signals.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GNU C-Graph signals.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 12:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

File:GNU C-Graph transforms.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GNU C-Graph transforms.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 12:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

File:GNU C-Graph Homepage Background.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GNU C-Graph Homepage Background.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)