The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sarah-Jayne Gratton. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Alpha Quadranttalk23:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah-Jayne Gratton, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawnmower Man Effect 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 high-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.
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you.Rorshacma (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, stop removing the AFD template. That's not how it works once an article is nominated for deletion. Please read WP:Articles for Deletion to understand the process, and leave any arguments for keeping the page on the associated AFD page. Rorshacma (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure how to be any more clear on this. I've already provided the link to Wikipedia's process of deletion. Once an article is nominated for deletion through AFD, removing the AFD template on the article does nothing except hurt the process. If you want to defend the article, do so on the AFD page, not by removing the template. But I can tell you right now that you're explanation would not be valid, as the source you claim as a reliable third party source was written by the individual who made the term up, thus making it not third party. Rorshacma (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV issues
Hi again Opn800, I notice you have reverted my edits to the Dean Anthony Gratton and Sarah-Jayne Gratton articles without any explanation. When you write Wikipedia articles you need to maintain a neutral tone suitable for an encyclopedia. Because many of the claims in these articles are cited to primary sources (written by, or with a close connection to the subjects) they are not independently verifiable. They seem to be largely self-promotional, which is particularly worrying because the Grattons seem to specialise in online promotion. Please remember to cite any claims to independent, reliable (non-blog) sources, or they may be challenged and/or removed. Sionk (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: your comment on my Talk page, I think you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia (you are not alone, many other people make the same mistake). Wikipedia only includes things that are notable (i.e. have been noticed and talked about by reliable, independent sources). It does not include things simply because they exist. If a reliable, independent (e.g. newpaper of magazine) source writes about Gratton's latest book (or theory) it is quite fine to quote it. It is not good or helpful to quote the Grattons writing about their own works - these are primary sources, which should be used only sparingly. Sionk (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the article's Talk page for an explanation of the problems with the article. Please attempt to replace at least some of the primary sources with independent sources that have no connection to Gratton, his websites, articles or his books. Sionk (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Opn800, have a look at the 'Social Media' category - there are no human beings listed in it. Therefore there is no reason to add the Grattons. Alan is quite right to remove them from it. Sionk (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
August 2012
Your recent editing history at Sarah-Jayne Gratton shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Alas, I'm perpetually frustrated by the insidious rules that govern Wikipedia. It seems there is an 'elitism' within this community which shadows its overall objective.
I disagree. It's more of a dictatorship with a 'black art' approach to updates and changes. If we don't comply or offer an opinion that upsets someone, you'll receive a notification "you'll be blocked", or exterminated!
No personal abuse please
I don't appreciate abuse such as "You're obviously bored and dysfunctional". Please refrain from it. Instead, why not spend some time reading some of the guidelines of Wikipedia and improving your articles. Wikipedia is not a place to write promotional pieces about people. Your articles on Sarah-Jayne Gratton and Dean Anthony Gratton are both overly promotional. As I've said in the past, they both rely almost exclusively on non-independent promotional sources. The only redeeming factor, as far as I can see, is that Dean Gratton has been noticed by his local newspaper.
Bear in mind no single person owns a Wikipedia article. Every editor is entitled to edit and amend articles, or nominate them for deletion if they see fit. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Sionk (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No abuse? Let me remind you reference to 'hardly' on Celebrity status on Gratton's page. Pot-kettle-black. There's that elitism thing going on again within the Wikipedia community.
It's incredibly derogatory and solely based on your unqualified opinion. It's tantamount to abuse.
Ah..Sionk, I've personally met them, face-to-face - I'm guessing more qualified than you, right? And, I don't recollect claiming ownership.. please ensure your ducks are in a neat row. I follow Sarah's work in particular and this has been my only collaboration here on Wikipedia... it's just not worth the hassle to provide any further contributions since joining as far back as 2006! It's community members like you that deem this process a chore and ultimately "not worth it."
Page protection
Please see Talk:Sarah-Jayne Gratton#Page protection. I have protected the article against any further edits to allow discussion to take place on the article talk page, and to prevent further rows in edit summaries. I was tempted to block one or more parties involved in the edit warring, but on this occasion decided to protect the article instead. If you or others edit-war after the page protection expires, then I expect blocks will be distributed. As I'm here, I'd just like to point out that "I've personally met them, face-to-face" gives you no increased say in how the article should be written. In fact, the closer an editor's relationship to the subject of an article, the more the editor needs to be aware of Wikipedia's principles on conflicts of interest. Wikipedia works much more on regurgitating what reliable sources have said about someone than on what that person says about themselves. Standards for what can and can't be included in an article are particularly high for biographies of living people, for what I hope are understandable reasons. If I can help further, please let me know. Best wishes, BencherliteTalk12:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the block and propose no further edits at this time. Nonetheless, Wikipedia needs to 'humanise' the 'black art' regulations it imposes as so called ‘guidelines’, along with adequately educating its community members to ‘pass-on’ appropriate education to others rather than dictate. Community members are evidently infused with an insipid or tainted agenda and may become disillusioned with Wikipedia’s overall objective.
If you have any ideas on how to improve the editing experience for others, please consider starting a discussion at the village pump. If there are any particular policies, principles or guidelines that you think could be improved, then please start discussions on the talk pages in question. I don't quite know what to make of your final sentence but I don't think that discussing it further here would be a good use of our time. Regards, BencherliteTalk12:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I would love to offer time to discuss as to how Wikipedia should humanise this process and, I desperately hope, especially with recent headlines, that Jimmy has made some headway. As for my last sentence, I dare say, you know exactly what I mean - Kevin.
Re this edit of yours - all users can remove mesages from their user talk pages; Sionk is not obliged to keep it on display just because you want it there. I'm not terribly impressed by your obvious reference to me as "Daddy", either. Please stop this sort of behaviour. BencherliteTalk14:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL There's that elitism thing 'Daddy' to which I intimated at in my 'last' sentence, which apparently you didn't understand. Bless.
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. This involves edit warring to replace comments on an editor's talk page as well as in articles and personal attacks and uncollegial comments on talk pages and in edit summaries. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2012 (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).
Your reason here OPN800 18:07, 24 August 2012 (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
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
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.
Utter nonsense. I questioned and I challenged and seemingly no-one has the balls.
STOP Wikipedia elitism.
Crikey, not only did I piss of 'Daddy' I pissed off 'Mummy' too.. I'm such a bad, bad boy.
STOP Wikipedia elitism.
I'm sure your priority is to improve Wikipedia--just like it is for the rest of us. Sadly, some of your edits and in particular the way you address your colleagues look as if you are more interested in getting your own way than in editing in collaboration with others. (That people don't agree with your opinions doesn't actually mean that they don't "have the balls" to agree with you--it means that they disagree. Dealing constructively with that is an integral part of collaborative editing.) When your block is lifted, you may want to try to convey a different impression, and in particular to stop editing in direct violation of this basic policy. Thank you! --bonadeacontributionstalk15:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, my priority would be to improve Wikipedia but, alas, it takes two to 'tango' and whilst my edits were frowned upon by my alleged colleagues, I was eager to enter a discussion rather than receive a dictatorial stance. The 'balls' reference was merely to the lack of courage needed to discuss edits that are made to an article and while these remain subjective subjective, it should be an opportunity to enter a discourse to improve Wikipedia. However, the manner in which some of the community members conduct themselves leave nothing more than an elitist perspective. I'll endeavour to 'convey a different impression' but I refuse to be bullied by the elitists within this community.
I hope it helps.
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 or 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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sweetheart, I don't think YOU understand. I'd be happy to offer you a definition from a dictionary if you don't fully understand. Happy to help...
I understand the definition of the word. The policy that might be beneficial for you to read, however, is WP:NOTANARCHY. Despite Wikipedia being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that doesn't mean that there are no rules. There are policies, guidelines, and community norms that need to be followed in order to prevent the project from turning into a chaotic mess. When you do something that violates a rule, someone might send you a message letting you know, and this often will be a more experienced user who fully understands the rules. One of those rules is that when an article has been nominated for deletion, a template is placed at the top of the article to notify users of that discussion. You removed that template before the deletion discussion was over. An automated script reinstated the template and sent you a brief message, letting you know about this particular rule. It is inconceivable how you could possibly interpret that as elitism. ‑Scottywong| express _17:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's all we need - please, ply us with *rules and whatnot, because what I thought was the "people's encyclopaedia" just needs that extra shaft! You hero...
Elitism within the Wikipedia community does exist: "Trusted Wikipedia editors allegedly involved in favoritism scandal" [1]
Just letting you know: like it or not, Wikipedia has rules, and those rules aren't defined by you (although you certainly have the opportunity to provide input on the rules). If you aren't capable of understanding and following rules, you probably won't last very long here. Posting cryptic complaints about elitism in random places isn't likely to produce any significant results. Have a good day. ‑Scottywong| chatter _19:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Sarah-Jayne Gratton shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Grattongirl.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the user's appeal and has declined to unblock at this time. After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Sionk with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Wikipelli Talk 15:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
lists.wikimedia.org. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
