Hello, Carnaptime, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
You (an the anonymous IP address under which have previously edited Wikipedia) have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. — Signaturebrendel03:59, 24 May 2007 (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).
I have been blocked from editing the St. John’s College page. Let it be known that the individuals who monitor the St. John’s site are almost all themselves Johnnies, and they’ve put forth several arguments for not adding my website. THERE ARE TWO ISSUES HERE:
(1) I have refuted every one of their arguments, from the website not being “verifiable” to Wikipedia not being a “soapbox.” Please see the discussion page for more (my posts are signed "carnaptime" or "PT"). As I have iterated ad nauseum, GIVE ME A LEGITIMATE REASON TO TAKE DOWN MY LINK, OR KEEP IT UP. These Johnnies, who, of course, have a vested interest in the page, about which they are as authoritarian as the St. John’s program, either fail to respond to my objections or make a bad refutable argument. THE REASON I KEPT POSTING THE LINK TO THE WEBSITE IS BECAUSE, ONCE AGAIN: GIVE ME A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR TAKING THE LINK DOWN, OTHERWISE, LEAVE IT UP. They would take the link down, and then I would add it and write "Give me a legitimate reason..." They would take the link down and I would write "Give me a legitimate reason..." Thus, these Johnnies just kept removing the link without responding to my concerns, and thus, I continued to post the link. It’s as simple as that. Furthermore, if there is an issue of posting one’s own link, then surely (a) there is an issue of monitoring the St. John’s wiki page by St. John’s students (of which I am not), and (b) I could very easily get someone else to post it. Again, the link is perfectly legitimate, a notable site (that the entire St. John’s community is aware of), and so on.
(2) If the arguments that the Johnnies monitoring the St. John’s page are valid, then there is some serious editing that needs to be done – as one of the Johnnies said, some of the material is not verifiable or sourced, and there is quite a bit of original research on the page. This needs to be removed immediately, whether or not someone forces my link off the page.
Wikipedia is not, of course, the place for suppression of ideas, as has been the case. I want solid reasons for not putting my link up, or else I WANT THE LINK UP. I am only asking for fairness, but so far have only received the opposite. Again, my link is not a fansite, or anything of the sort. It is a legitimate critique of the St. John's program -- and surely, in the "St. John's spirit," it belongs under the external links section, just like Sydney Hooks' essay, and so on. Once again, all I am asking for is fairness -- instead, without any valid reason, I have been blocked. (Why not block the individual who kept removing my link without giving me a reason why?)
Thanks.
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.
A tag has been placed on Phillip torrres requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
A tag has been placed on Phillip Torres requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillip Torres (author) 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 notice from the top of the article. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
