Jump to content

User talk:Michael-Moates/Archive 0

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


SPI

I've reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmoates.

If your are blocked, I would not oppose an ublock provided that you apologize like you did on Wikidata. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

BillHPike I have responded to your investigation request. Please direct all communication there and kindly leave me alone here. I have no interest in talking to you further. I am here to contribute and I created this account under Wikipedia:Clean start. I do not have to apologize to you. I only have to follow Wikipedia policy which I am. DoctorTexan (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I only intended to suggest that DoctorTexan might be unblocked if he invoked WP:STANDARD OFFER and give assurances that past conduct would not be repeated. Moates has indicated that he is in a different point in his life and that he would like to assure the community that his past conduct will not be repeated.
I believe that the community would expect DoctorTexan to apologize for his past misconduct. Some has been directed at me on Meta and some of it at me locally. Other conduct has targeted Kelli Ward and insulted other admins like JBW and Spartaz (Michael Moates appears to have used 2600:1700:70E0:3EE0::00/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), 2600:6C56:6F00:69E7::0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), 2600:8800:2C81:AC20::0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), and 47.44.192.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS))
In particular, Moates' arbcom filings [1][2] were both premature a drain on community resources.
I would not oppose an unblock even if Moates did not apologize to me, but I suspect that community may be reluctant to unblock if Moates is only willing to apologize with carveouts.
I think reasonable unblock terms could include:
1. Not to file an arbcom case without a consensus at WP:ANI.
2. Acceptance of a WP:Civility restriction.
3. Limit to 1 revert (WP:1RR).
4. Acknowledgment and acceptance the discretionary sanctions from WP:ARBAP2 and WP:ARBBLP.

— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 05:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. DoctorTexan (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Block

  • (edit conflict) quick comment that I was typing out since I was the one who was initially pinged here: You are absolutely evading your block; the assertion that you forgot your password does not mean that we can't hold you accountable for your actions. You have also made egregious personal attacks at the SPI that I would ask the reviewing administrator to examine before considering an unblock. --Blablubbs|talk 11:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    You consider citing Wikipedia a personal attack, Blablubbs? DoctorTexan (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    No, I consider unsupported accusations of blackmail personal attacks, DoctorTexan. --Blablubbs|talk 11:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    Also, Blablubbs - In case you are not aware of the policy, Wikipedia:Blocking policy states that blocks should not be "to punish" or "to retaliate" so your "accountable" comment goes against policy. Also it is blackmail... if you threaten to punish someone unless you do what they want that is blackmail. You can't threaten someone to get what you want and then claim its not blackmail.DoctorTexan (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    Also, closing admin something to consider - Blablubbs has removed evidentiary information from the investigation because it doesn't fit his narrative. DoctorTexan (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    No, DoctorTexan, you're mixing things up here. You were blocked for socking, which is a violation of policy and inherently disruptive; in response to that block for socking, you continued to sock and continued to get blocked for it. That is not "punishment" or "retaliation", that is prevention of continued disruption, which is what blocks are for. The reviewing admin may see the redacted comments in the page history, at least for now. --Blablubbs|talk 11:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • DoctorTexan, it is unfortunate that you went about this all wrong in creating this new account and continue to undermine any chance of success for being unblocked in the future. The fact that you claim you lost your password to the master account means that to be unblocked you have to do a little more work, but it does not mean that you can create an account, make substantive edits with that account (whether they are disruptive is immaterial) and then start complaining when a report is filed against you. You exacerbate things further when you start lashing out at the filer of that report, me, and Blablubbs. Even if you don't have access to the master account, what about all of your other accounts? Have you forgotten the passwords of all of them? What about User:Datamaster1? That account has e-mail, so you could retrieve your password. If you continue to double-down on the insults, I will revoke your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    Bbb23 - Your statement is accurate... I don't have access to the information of the other accounts. Explain to me your comment "a little more work" I don't know what I can do to get access to those accounts. My issue is not that the complaint was filed. My issue is that the person who filed the complaint gave me an ultimatum that I had to apologize to him or he was going to file the complaint. I don't owe him anything. I just want to make constructive edits here. That is all. You don't want to call it blackmail, fine... but what do you call someone who is threatening to report you unless you do what they want? I don't have access to the email from the data master acct. Keep in mind most of these accounts are over a year old... I simply don't have the information... I was at a very different point in my life. I can honestly say I am genuinely trying here. I don't know how to move forward. I don't have access to the accounts and Bill has been watching me since day 1... how am I to be successful like that. My edits on this account were accurate and productive. I am trying. DoctorTexan (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    What you say about the "blackmail" is not true. BHP first reopened the SPI. Then he told you that if you were blocked, he would not oppose an unblock if you apologized to him. That's not an "ultimatum" or a "threat". It's actually fairly generous, although, of course, he doesn't get to decide whether you are unblocked. Why can't you reset your password using Datamaster1 (you didn't answer that question)? There are at least a couple of other ways to request an unblock without creating an account. One is to e-mail ArbCom and appeal your block. Another is to e-mail an active CheckUser as the block of the master is a CU block.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    To put it bluntly... I don't know how to "e-mail ArbCom and appeal your block" or "e-mail an active CheckUser as the block of the master is a CU block" and I am sorry ... I simply am not aware of those processes. Keeping in mind that even though I have gotten in trouble in the past I am not an expert of Wikipedia... and some of this is above my head. Also, I was going based off what I read in Wikipedia:Clean start which says "If you are not under Arbitration Committee sanctions, you are not required to notify anyone of your clean start." Again my apologies for not understanding... I am doing the best I can to learn this fast. If you look at any of the accounts I don't believe I have ever sent an email... I'm not sure how to do that. DoctorTexan (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    You are putting the cart before the horse when it comes to Cleanstart. You only get to your quotation if the Cleanstart is valid in the first instance. The last part of the lead of Cleanstart says that a sock cannot take advantage of Cleanstart. Here is the e-mail address for ArbCom: arbcom-en@wikimedia.org (see just above WP:ARBCOM#LISTS). And for contacting a CU: WP:CONTACTCU.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the unblock request pending evaluation of ArbCom. DoctorTexan (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Renewed Request for Unblock

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).

Michael-Moates (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Request given unblock by Global unblock and Wikidata. I have assured on numerous times that I will follow the rules. Given that I have now been globally unblocked and on Wikidata, I would like to contribute here as well. DoctorTexan (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Setting up this account earlier this month to continue violating WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK is proof-positive you haven't the slightest intention of following the rules. You don't even attempt to address this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2021 (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.

UNBLOCK

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).

Michael-Moates (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yamla previously denied my request saying "Setting up this account earlier this month to continue violating WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK is proof-positive you haven't the slightest intention of following the rules." But did not consider that it had been nearly a year. I told the admins on Wikidata that I did not have access to login into the old accounts. This was no evasion... it was simply a way to start over... Since I can't login I don't know how to move forward. Please see: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:DoctorTexan/Archive/2021 - Where I was unblocked. Note that I have been unblocked on Wikidata and globally unblocked. I have made nearly 130 edits on Wikidata, all of which were constructive. I ask the closing admin to consider this article by, Bovlb https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Bovlb/Don%27t_underestimate_ignorance. It explains exactly how I feel. I am trying to be productive here.

Decline reason:

You have a long list of accounts blocked for block evasion, including this one. As you have been blocked repeatedly for this, you cannot have a clean start with this account. And, this is not Wikidata, so what they say there does not apply to here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2021 (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.

RickinBaltimore - So explain this to me how does one start being effective here? I am lost... I have no access to previous accounts and I waited over a year to try again. Also, the point was not to use Wikidata admins as support the point was I am making constructive edits. DoctorTexan (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

CONFUSED

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).

Michael-Moates (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Am I to understand there is no way forward? Please see the above... I am not sure how to move forward at this point

Decline reason:

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.

Unblock Req

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Michael-Moates (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Based on Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks here is what I can say. First, the block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption... this account was set up simply because I do not have login info for my old accounts. Everything done with this account has been productive and not destructive. Second, that the block is no longer necessary because I understand that I can only run one account and that is this account. Third, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead. I did not create this account for evasion... I just didn't know what to do without the login info of previous accounts. I would be asked to be unblocked under Wikipedia:Standard offer. It has been six months without sockpuppetry or block evasion and I have promised to avoid the behavior. DoctorTexan (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

There is consensus at AN for an unblock here. SQLQuery me! 23:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

DoctorTexan made three productive edits before the block. I think it is reasonable to apply Hanlon's razor and assume that he did not maliciously try to evade the block. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
BillHPike - Thank you for that. I hope you can see from my perspective how once you screw up it is very hard to get back in good graces here. Internet communication is also hard. I am sorry for the way I have treated you in the past. I appreciate your compassion in this instance... it feels like everyone is against me until you just said that. DoctorTexan (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Closing admin - also for transparency note. Please know that if unblocked I plan to change my username in accordance with Wikipedia:Username policy. I thought DoctorTexan sounded cool as a proud Texan but I am not a doctor and I am rethinking that is misleading. Also, I plan to request the username be MichaelMoates so there is transparency about any COI's I have. DoctorTexan (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
As an admin on Wikidata, I reviewed DoctorTexan's recent unblock request there and, after some discussion, accepted it (per WP:ROPE) based on assurances of using only a single account and editing constructively. In the brief time since that unblock, I have seen no problematic edits from this user. I acknowledge that this user has gotten himself into a somewhat bigger mess here than on Wikidata, but I am an advocate of trying hard to find good-faith explanations of apparently-disruptive new-user behaviour and I believe that applies here. Although I am also an admin here on ENWP, I believe this situation requires consensus action, so I do not intend to act directly on this unblock request. Bovlb (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I've posted at WP:ANI#Standard offer requested by DoctorTexan — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
BillHPike Thank you! Beeblebrox - I would like to respond to your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but can't so I am going to respond here, I hope that is okay. Within two minutes of creating my account, I disclosed who I am at Wikidata... See here https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User:DoctorTexan&oldid=1414188610 ... I didn't realize that I needed to go to each project individually and do so... this was not a bad faith attempted to hide it because I openly admitted it.... Respectfully, I think it is unfair to say that I tried to hide it when I said within two minutes... the problem is I assumed (I shouldn't have) that it would be known across all projects. I am sorry that was not done right. cc: Bovlb DoctorTexan (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I want to be clear since I am under scrutiny that I did not achieve the past unblock request the bot did that. DoctorTexan (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Disclosing it at Wikidata isn't the same thing as disclosing it here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
It does matter if my intention was to set it up as a global account but got banned before I could do so. Also, you implied I was trying to hide something and that couldn't be farther from the truth. DoctorTexan (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
As I said at ANI, I find it fairly weird that you are claiming you were trying to be transparent but just didn't realise your disclosure on Wikidata wasn't sufficient but then a few days ago were claiming you were trying a CLEANSTART which by your own quotation requires you try to completely disconnect from your previous account and editing. Also although your editing to the encyclopaedia proper may have been fine, I don't see how you can claim "Everything done with this account has been productive and not destructive". You are responsible for any edits from this account on the anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Accusing another editor of harassment, stalking and blackmail is definitely destructive and not productive by my book. It's good that you appear to have come to the realisation this was wrong, not so good that you appearing to be ignoring it in your unblock request. Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
This will be my last response for a few days. I need a break from the negativity here. Rather than get into arguments I am going to take myself some distance and let the community decide my fate. I came back here with the hopes of contributing to this community. When I created this account, I did not do so with the intention of engaging in a ban evasion, I did so with the intent of coming back to start over. Along the way, I self identified my previous accounts and was globally banned and banned on both Wikidata and Wikipedia. Bovlb was very kind and unblocked me after I apologized and gave him reasonable assurances that I would not engage in disruptive behavior. I was also globally unblocked with his support. When I came back it immediately felt like an attack. I felt cornered when all I wanted to do was contribute. I recently graduated with my masters degree and felt I had some knowledge to share. Yes, in the past, BillHPike and I have gotten into it. What originally felt like being personally targeted I now realize was him protecting the project and I subsequently apologized to him and have his support to move forward with the unban. I have learned that you can't please everyone. I am not even going to try. I am going to make mistakes, although not intentional because I am an imperfect person. There are admins who disagree with me and that is okay. I will always follow the written policy as I understand it and if there is something I don't understand I will ask. In the last couple of weeks, I have learned a lot about the Wiki Foundation projects and have contributed to Commons, Data, News, and En-Wiki. I do not do so with the intent of causing problems. I respectfully ask to be given the benefit of the doubt. As, the people in the ANI have pointed out if I did something I was not supposed to I would end up banned anyways. I also ask you to consider that rather then argue with Nil Einne as to why I disagree with his assessment of my actions, I am closing to walk away. In the past, I would not have done this. I don't have the desire to fight anymore. I the community sees fit to let me back in I will comeback with open arms and do my best to contribute effectively. If not, I will continue to contribute to the other projects. Thank you for your consideration. I will check back daily for any questions but beyond that I am going to be taking a break pending the outcome here. I appreciate all that everyone does by providing information the public and I appreciate all the effort put in by Bovlb , BillHPike, and the others who have supported me and helped shaped me into the person I want to be here. DoctorTexan (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Nil Einne - I refer you to the policy which states I am to address the reason I was blocked which was Sockpuppet not anything else. Furthermore, I refer you to WP:NOPUNISH which states blocks should not be used to "punish" or "if there is no current conduct issue of concern." This past issue is not relevant to the unblock request as there was no action taken. DoctorTexan (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies Beeblebrox - I didn't mean to tag you.

Hello, DoctorTexan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

If you are unblocked, these links will help you make productive contributions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

BillHPike - Thank you!

Seeking Input Rather Than Making Another Mistake

If I wanted to create an article where I have a clear COI but I only created the draft and then asked editors to review and make changes would this help avoid the potential of bias? Obviously, I would disclose that I have a COI on the talk page.

CC: BillHPike Bovlb Wugapodes DoctorTexan (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi DrTexan, and nice to hear from you again! That all sounds like a good plan. Having someone review an article when you have a COI is usually a good idea, and if you want more information on that you can read our conflict of interest guideline. The typical way to ask for someone to review your draft is through the articles for creation process but as a warning, it can take a couple weeks to get a review so be patient. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
See also WP:FAMOUS — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Question

Wug· BillHPike - would you consider removing the speedy deletion tag for the two articles listed above so that I can have more than 24 hours to work on them. Both individuals meet the notability requirements they just need to be written better. I plan to do significant work on them but I don’t want them to get deleted before I have a chance especially since one of them were still in draft space where I was seeking comments from the community. I can’t remove it because I created the article and I would argue that both subjects are notable and meet the requirements it’s a matter of changing the language which I can do in time. See Dustin Stockton Draft: Michael Moates DoctorTexan (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the Dustin Stockton page back to draft space so that it can be improved. Unfortunately, I’m not home right now and I shouldn’t even be doing this while driving. My hope is that it will not be deleted before I’ve had at the appropriate time to address the concerns. If the individual is notable then it is simply the language that creates the problem DoctorTexan (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dustin Stockton

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 Dustin Stockton, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 deleted 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. YODADICAE👽 15:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Civility Barnstar
For a successful reboot of your editing career. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much!! DoctorTexan (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts

@Praxidicae: I am sorry that I allowed my anxiety to get the best of me. I wanted to reply to you on here so that you know I was trying to respect your wishes for me not to be on your top page but also said that I could address you. Would you consent to giving me a couple of hours to get home and gather this continent specifically for research purposes and then work with you together to re-create the articles in a way that you deem productive? I think they have value. I think they can be fixed and I would love your help if it’s something you’re willing to consider. DoctorTexan (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology but given the years of self-promotion and warnings about WP:COI, I'm concerned about your statement that there is no COI for Dustin Stockton. Are you going to declare that as required? YODADICAE👽 17:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes I did fully intend to add to the talk page. If you look at the times I was editing I was going through this in the middle of the night and I finally just said it was time for bed. I was nowhere near done. I want to do everything in my power to make sure that I’m transparent. Being honest, I can’t say that I was going to add the conflict of interest tag. Rather, I was going to state that I know and have worked with Dustin in the past. I didn’t consider it really being a conflict of interest in the present because I am no longer associated with him. I have only worked with him in the past. That might be a misinterpretation of the conflict of interest policy and I need to read that further. What I will also say is that I plan to delete some of the continent in each of these articles. For example on the page about me I plan to remove all the Twitter references with the individuals that are cited. I know this looks promotional the point was not to promote it and it’s why I didn’t publish it. I was trying to gather information in order to have all of it in one place. It needs a lot of work and I can’t do it alone which is why I asked for the communities help. I would be grateful for any input you can offer. Here is what I wrote before the administratively close the case:
@Praxidicae: - I am so sorry for misgendering you and I can promise you that was not done intentionally. I don’t want to take this to the administrators noticeboard I was concerned that you were going to. As I stated previously, my anxiety got the best of me and I admit that I didn’t place the tag the way that I should have. I ask you to consider a couple of things first that I am a new editor regardless of the stock accounts I am just learning the policies here. Second my goal is to descalate this. I hope that you can understand how someone who suffers from an anxiety disorder might see the speedy deletion in big red letters and freak out after putting in all that work. I think the articles can be improved and I think they would be useful here. I can say with full certainty that I was not done with either article. I also wanted to avoid any conflict of interest or neutrality problems and that’s why I asked for the communities comments. I was hoping that someone would review it. I also took the step of asking people in advance of creating the articles if this was a good option. Both of these administrators thought that it would work. I’m not looking to challenge you and I don’t want to fight. I would like to figure out how we can come to a resolution. If you will indulge me I would love your help on improving these articles DoctorTexan (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
You are not, in fact a new editor as per the socking history but that is not my point. Are you going to disclose your conflict of interest regarding Stockton or not? YODADICAE👽 17:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
As I stated yes I fully intend to. When I say that I’m a new editor I’m not referencing anything other than the fact that I am new to learning the policies here and being productive. Anyone can create an account and do random edits without giving any care to the policies here. I can honestly say that I am genuinely trying to learn them. In addition, I think that my actions show that I am still learning for example the template was applied incorrectly, I misunderstood the edit war policy. I’m trying to learn and I feel a lot of anxiety right now because I feel like I’m going to get blocked for learning the policies and trying to implement them the best way that I can. I am definitely learning. My point is that I am still learning how to use the platform productively. I would work together to fix everything and I am sorry for upsetting you. DoctorTexan (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: I wanted you to know that I’m hearing you and I’m listening to you. I’m learning from you. Instead of trying to argue about the logistics of the conflict of interest tag I just went ahead and added it. I want to be transparent and I don’t wanna look like I have something to hide. DoctorTexan (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's a tip

Advice: Don't include any external links in your text. People who are trying to advertise always do that because they are trying to get readers to click on that link. Deb (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I also plan on adding the COI. Do you mind providing me the content and allowing me work on it in sandbox? DoctorTexan (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Deb: sorry I forgot DoctorTexan (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Not while you've got that wall of self-promotional text on your user page. Deb (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Deb: I removed everything but the infoboxes and coi and added Dustin. Now if you’re willing I would love to work on the article with you. DoctorTexan (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Michael Moates

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 Draft:Michael Moates, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 deleted 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. YODADICAE👽 15:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Deb: would you be willing to provide me the text from this page for my records and help me to learn how to improve it? DoctorTexan (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Most of the text is available at Special:AbuseLog/29996642. (Just because an edit triggered an abuse filter does not automatically mean the edit was problematic. See WP:EDITFILTER) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Awesome thank you! So my question would now be... what is the best way for me to repair this article? Sandbox? New Draft and be very careful about promo? Articles for creation?
@BillHPike: @Deb: DoctorTexan (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, is there a way for me to work with the community to perfect it without speedy deletion issues? DoctorTexan (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest reading WP:AMOUNT. The best way to prevent deletion is to make sure the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:Notability (people). Even is the subject is notable, the article can still be deleted under WP:G11 if the article is excessively promotional.
Although the same rules generally apply, the community tends to be more forgiving of mistakes in userspace drafts than in draftspace drafts. See Help:Userspace draft. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michael-Moates/Archive_0&oldid=1025626636"