User talk:Minorview

Extended content

March 2012 Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Your edit to Introduction to genetics was successful, but because it was not considered beneficial to the page, the edit has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC) I just asked a question. Your article has been moved to AfC space Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Minorview/Robin Holcomb has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robin Holcomb, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robin Holcomb. To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Robin Holcomb 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 Robin Holcomb requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can 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 a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robin Holcomb. To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Nouniquenames (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Robin Holcomb Thanks for message. It's not just the references The article is fan-talk, not an encyclopaedia article. We don't know her nationality (although the context suggests US), age, education or training. The first two paras are just fan-babble (I didn't check whether they were copied from a website, although copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by her or her organisation, unless they state clearly that the text is public domain). There is not even a claim of notability, no indication of how she meets the notability guidelines for music. She's made some recordings, none of which are linked to Wikipedia articles. For all we are told, they may have sold 10 copies each, no awards, nothing. If you can give a reason for her notability, you need independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts. . The NYT is a reliable source, but the article you gave is just a review, it doesn't give any biographical info or explain why she is notable. She may well be notable, but the deleted article gave no indication of why Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC) I don't know what you consider notable. The first thing I see at that link you gave is that notability is not enough to "speedily delete" something. She's notable enough for the German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Holcomb It's kind of insulting to be told I wrote "fan babble." It also says: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). I documented both of those in References and Discography. question Can I re-create the article? Your submission at Articles for creation Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robin Holcomb. To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Txcrossbow (talk) 03:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I understand your passion for the artist. Try citing inline references to substantiate notability. Before you re-submit, feel free to send a message to one of us to review the article. Cheers. Txcrossbow (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Moving the location of the citation doesn't increase documentation of notability. It just changes where it is. The artist meets the notability requirements, and that is documented in the article. Failing it because of notability is wrong. Period. I don't actually know how to do "inline citations". Minorview (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC) I just read your latest comment on my talk page, particularly directing me to "STOP BLACKING THE ARTICLE". Heads up, I only declined it once. You did not RE-SUBMIT, which is why my decline is at the top of your page. Secondly, being confrontational with reviewers will not change the status of your article. I was respectful and tried to be helpful when I addressed you; please reciprocate. If you don't know how to do in-line references, you could have simply asked. The declination was not a personal attack on you. Txcrossbow (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC) A little honesty goes a long way. I did not "direct" you to "STOP BLOCKING THE ARTICLE." What I actually wrote was "Would you please stop blocking the article?" Your denial of the article is wrong. The crieria for notability are straightforward, and the subject meets them. You made a mistake, and I am asking you to fix your mistake. Minorview (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robin Holcomb. To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 12:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Removal of sourced content, March 2013 In this edit you removed sourced content with WP:RS sources. You have provided no sources of your own to justify said deletion. I suggest you self-revert to avoid a revert cycle, given that the material is fully sourced and pertains to the subject of the article. If you cannot provide WP:RS sources that justify your statement about weight, your edit will have to be reverted, and should you revert again, that will be WP:Disruptive editing given that you are performing deletion of sourced content with no sources to justify your own actions. History2007 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Sourcing is necessary but not sufficient for the addition of material. Your edits violated a policy other than WP:RS, and you have been told about it. Minorview (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC) And exactly which policy was violated? None. Trust me, I know policy. History2007 (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC) March 2013: Repeated removal of sourced content In this edit you again removed fully sourced WP:RS content without having any sources of your own. Tell me why his is not WP:Disruptive editing given that: You removed John Lange's classic scholarly characterization of the field. You removed the Cicero example I had added as a successful example in favor of arguments from silence You removed Michael Duncan's review of the field You removed the reference to the Magna Carta, a key historical example. You even removed the page number I had added to the Louis Jacobs reference after much searching to confirm it. Please explain here in very clear terms why this is not Wikipedia:I just don't like it, given that you have "zero sources" of your own, and just delete scholarly material, key historical references and, and even page numbers at will. This must stop. This must stop. History2007 (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC) In any case, you have been reverted by another user now. But do not start a revert cycle, and do not just delete at will. You are not on the WP:3RR line, but before you get there, read that page very carefully, note that it is a "bright line rule" and avoid a revert cycle, for it will result in a block on your account. History2007 (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC) It has already been explained on the Talk page. Judging form your defense of your material, you think anything reliably sourced can be added at will. That's incorrect. RS is necessary, not sufficient. It is your job to justify your additions. Minorview (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC) No, given that in one click you deleted an "overview of the field" and examples in favor of arguments from silence (really, really!) i see zero logic in your deletion, or your explanation there. I have seen as much logic in your edit as I have seen sources from you. Zero. History2007 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC) 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). Minorview (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: It is physically impossible that checkuser found anyone else shares my computer. Nobody else has access to the only computer I use for Wikipedia, and I recall only 1 instance of using a public computer recently. That was in a different city a few months ago. Minorview (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Decline reason: You state that nobody else has used the computer you are editing from. That confirms that the edits do indeed come from one person, which is exactly the reason for the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC) 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 point was there is no way checkuser found that Humanpublic and I edit from the same computer or IP. I am not Humanpublic, and I use shared computers rarely. Minorview (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Do I need to put this is a second appeal request. Minorview (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Since I am not a checkuser, I cannot see the checkuser data, so I cannot see how strong the evidence is that you were using the same computer. I have asked the checkuser who did the report to look at it again. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC) But you know, even without seeing a CU report, when one looks into the obvious edit evidence, the link between these accounts is clear when one considers that: HumanPublic = IP 140.211.82.5 IP 140.211.82.5 suddenly goes off and edits Robin Holcomb, which is Minorview's favoriet topic, of course Minor view shows out of nowhere to support Humanpublic/IP140.211.82.5 whenever needed with similar arguments The "it wasn't me" claim here seems very strange indeed. History2007 (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC) That IP belongs to the university of Oregon, which has an enrollment of around 20,000 undergrads, + grads and staff. I'm surprised you didn't checkuser me, and find that I've edited from that IP. I live half a mile from campus. Strangesad (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC) I have now looked at a good deal more of the evidence than I had when I wrote the comment above beginning "Since I am not a checkuser..." In light of that evidence, there is no doubt whatsoever that Minorview and Humanpublic are either the same person or else two people collaborating. What is more, if it is the latter, then it is almost inconceivable that the two don't know that they have been editing from the same computer, or at the least that each of them knows that he/she has edited from a computer that the other has access to, and is likely to have edited from. Therefore, their denials are clearly disingenuous. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC) ... I also see that the checkuser states that he ran redundant checks, and that the evidence is totally unambiguous. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC) The first thing I saw when I looked at Robin Holcomb's history was an edit by History2007's friend and ally Huon [1]--who also edits Jesus, and whom I recognized from one of the ANIs on Humanpublic. Remarkable coincidence. This is an interesting tool I hadn't seen before: [2] It will also show enormous overlap between myself and those editors, between History2007, Jeppiz, Huon, etc. [3] Coincidences involving Christianity, on English-language Wikipedia, are going to be common. Based purely on editing style, Smeat and Seb seem very much like socks, and there is the coincidence of having several articles in common [4] Strangesad (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC) hahahahahaha Here's the place to report us -[5].Smeat75 (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC) That is not how the system works, but I will not spend time explaining it here; just let you know that although you and human public know each other in real life the system correctly detected that you are different people. Given the editing times, some of the users you mentioned are likely in different countries, if not on different continents. But now it is time to move on. I thought in view of this, the whole situation is ironic. But it is time to move on. History2007 (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC) 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). Minorview (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I live/edit 120 miles from that IP. There is no way the IP logs can show that I edit from that computer. I do get down to the university 3-4 times a year (last time was in February) and could edit from a public computer there a very infrequently. History2007's comment that I “showed out of nowhere” to support Humanpublic neglects the fact that Humanpublic's editing of Jesus was the subject multiple ANI/AN threads. I came across their editing the same way most of the community did, by seeing the debates and taking an interest. Minorview (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Decline reason: Cutting through the verbiage; this is a checkuser block and will not be overturned by an admin without CU privilege.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC) 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. Something is wrong with the template. Anyway, I am trying to request a second CU opinion. How do I do that? Minorview (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC) There's already been a second CU, including redundant checks. So there have been two CU reports establishing that Minorview and Humanpublic are the same, in addition to two denied unblock requests. Time to move on now.Jeppiz (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC) There has been no 2nd CU report that I was told about. Minorview (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Without spending undue time here (again per WP:OWB items 3/4) let me just say that this whole Humanpublic editing from a library and does not have computer/internet at home, etc. just seem unusual, because his last edit was at 13:26 today which is about 6:20am on the westcoast/Oregon. So he gets up at 6:20 in the morning and types on his talk page... History2007 (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC) I edited at 14:29, or 1 hour and 3 minutes later, and I did so from a computer that is a 2-hour drive from the IP you attribute to Humanpublic. Will somebody please check the IPs. It is very possible that I edited from the U. of Oregon in February, from a public computer. Minorview (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Ips do not determine a unique geolocation, but anyway, it is not just the two accounts, and there is the semi-sleeper User:Ornowhere which check user turned up by itself, and has such a brief edit history that only CU could detect it. History2007 (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC) In line with WP:OWB point 3, talk page access has been removed for the duration of the block. Enough time has been spent on this, which is going nowhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC) That was abusive and not in line with policy. Making a case on one's own behalf on one's own Talk page is not Talk page abuse, DoRD stated on his Talk page that Minorview is entitled to a second appeal, and no warning was given here that Talk page access might be revoked. Strangesad (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom unblock appeal

After independently examining the technical evidence the Committee has decided to decline the appeal.

For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)