User talk:LIC11377

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! clpo13_(talk) 19:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Crowley

Regarding Elizabeth Crowley: please leave the text at the top of the article. It's there to aid in navigation. If a reader searches for the name "Elizabeth Crowley", this is the first article that shows up, but they may be looking for someone else with the same name. clpo13_(talk) 19:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LIC11377, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi LIC11377! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Elizabeth Crowley. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. You seem to have a WP:Conflict of Interest in this article's subject. JesseRafe (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Elizabeth Crowley, you may be blocked from editing. This is much more serious than your clear NPOV/COI issues, do not remove tags, categories, maintenance tags, and templates from any article on Wikipedia just because you don't understand them. Especially applicable to BLP articles. JesseRafe (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me revise my earlier post. (talk) made some very good edits to the page. One issue I do have is the wholesale removal of the Maspeth Shelter incident. This issue generated an unprecedented public response, mobilized considerable community opposition and served as the bellweather case for the Mayor's response to the current homeless crisis. I urge you to keep it

Your use of phrases like "unprecedented public response" is exactly the type of weasel words and peacocking used by a COI/NPOV single-issue editor, and furthermore it is unfunded -- the public has certainly responded in similar ways before, millions of times throughout history. On top of which, it had little to nothing to do with Elizabeth Crowley, which is what makes the addition of the material undue. Please read those sections of Wikipedia policy I have sent you the links to numerous times. JesseRafe (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you have ignored time and again warnings that the photo you used is a copyright violation, something Wikipedia has to take very seriously for its existence. On top of which, you've bullheadedly destroyed others' work such as useful charts, have a history of deleting hattags, and delete maintenance tags, categories and backpage data with abandon because you don't like it, or don't understand it. This behavior can also not be tolerated and must be improved for you to be considered acting in good faith. JesseRafe (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential use of multiple accounts

Not opening an SPI on this user now, as the other accounts are no longer in use, but the pattern of only editing Elizabeth Crowley and, in particular, in a narrative pattern of embellishing her career and a wiki-pattern of doing so by the same repeated uses of subsections and sub-subsections to call attention to single sentence paragraphs to tout an accomplishment or platform plank leads me to think all these users are the same, and to put this here as a heads up to other editors:

Letsediteverything2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Makechanges1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
CorrectRecord13 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Jhern88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

~ JesseRafe (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I forgot that Makechanges1 was already blocked twice for edits on the Crowlet article and that I did start an SPI, but it seems to have been deleted rather than archived, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Makechanges1, for some reason no longer apparent. JesseRafe (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not any of these editors. While I concede that the paragraph formatting benefited from improvement, the changes made were meticulously sourced and accurately reflect the tenure of the Council Member. I respectfully request that the content of my edits be reinstated

Sourcing was not the issue here, but not everything and individual local interest detail that happens in the history of the world goes in an encyclopedia. Please read up on the links and explanations found at WP:notnews.JesseRafe (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've since amended sections and confirmed many of your edits, but I believe that the Maspeth shelter section removal is unwarranted. This is a defining moment in the Member's career and should be reflected in her page. I think your "everything in the history of the world"comment is rather glib and unfair. I think the onus is on you to prove that it ISNT an important event, as I have already extensively cited the information from major news sources and provided context to the issue in the comments section.

Please help me make the section better (as you've done elsewhere) but don't delete it wholesale. Also, there is no copyright issue as I am the copyright holder as I confirmed when uploading to commons.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:LIC11377 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: ). Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Elizabeth Crowle. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tips. I'll correct it

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Elizabeth Crowley, you may be blocked from editing. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zackmann08. According to the entry for synthesis, the phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Everything I added was meticulously cited from reputable sources. Therefore, I don't think this meets the criteria LIC11377 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Elizabeth Crowley

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended to five days for evasion. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/LIC11377. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, LIC11377. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Elizabeth Crowley, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. When you are back from your block, please read all of the material on the following links so that you know how to properly disclose your conflict of interest if you should choose to continue to contribute to Wikipedia in meaningful ways. JesseRafe (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LIC11377 ‎, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

JesseRafe (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]