User talk:MichaelHolmes36

Welcome!

Hello, MichaelHolmes36! 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! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Notability of persons

Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Notability (people) contains the inclusion criterion for people on wikipedia. Based on past history in dealing with local media personalities, on local radio stations and small market television generally those people generally don't meet the requirements for inclusion. You need multiple national sources that show the contributions of the person to their field. Co-hosting a radio show in central Illinois is not enough to warrant inclusion. I noticed your draft article about the subject, and I doubt that the article will be accepted for the reasons I just stated. Sorry. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there is no reason to include a list of people who live in a village or city. Please discontinue attempting to start such a list at Villa Grove, Illinois. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thanks. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to work on your draft article Draft:Lon Tay instead of deleting references and blindly undoing other edits so you can make a "notable" persons list in a village article. That draft article is going to be rejected by another editor without better references. As a point of comparison, WCIA news anchor Dave Benton's article was recently deleted due to lack of notability. If a local TV anchor is not notable enough for his own wikipedia article, there is pretty much no way a local radio host's article is going to be approved. Trust me, I've been doing this on and off for 8+ years. In it's current state, it's not going to be approved. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelHolmes36, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MichaelHolmes36! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Grove

Please do not engage in edit warring. If you do, you may be blocked. Omnedon (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you.

Further to this, you should note that deleting a thread concerning you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is a sure-fire way to get yourself blocked from editing - possibly indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Your recent editing history at Villa Grove, Illinois shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.
You are engaging yourself in edit warring. Stop it. You are being reverted for obvious reasons, but you don't comprehend your actions in reverting. Callmemirela (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Kuru (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lon Tay (October 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lon Tay and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rankersbo (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 22:01, 27 October 2014 (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).

MichaelHolmes36 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was very disappointed to see I had been blocked for contributing. I was trying to protect Wikipedia's integrity by reinstating a notable person that had been removed from the Villa Grove, IL page. While I was blocked for violating the three revision rule, none of the other users who had violated the three revision rule by undoing my legitimate edits were blocked. While I am disappointed that my legitimate and non-confrontational contributions have led to my blocking while enduring name calling from other Wikipedia users, I am confident that the review will agree with my assessment and I will be able to contribute to the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia in the future. MichaelHolmes36 (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

AndyTheGrump's analysis below is entirely correct. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You might want to reread the block rationale. You were blocked for edit warring not for violating 3rr. The article history clearly shows you inserted, and reinserted, the contended material a total of 10 times with it being reverted each time. This is text book edit warring. After the first reversion of your material, you should have opened up a talk page discussion concerning the material. The individual you were seeking to include into the article fails the notability guideline as there has not been substantial 3rd party coverage of the person in reliable sources. Of the three sources you sought to use, one was to a Wikipedia page which is never allowed as Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source and any time a wiki page is used as a reference it should be removed. The first links to their profile page at the radio station that they work at and does not establish notability while the third has nothing about the individual except a guest appearance listing. None of these three sources are reliable and the other editors were right to remove them from the page. Blackmane (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that MichaelHolmes36's so-called "legitimate and non-confrontational contributions" included deleting the initial thread reporting his edit-warring from the noticeboard: [2] Not remotely legitimate, and self-evidently confrontational. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now a blindingly-obvious sockpuppet account has appeared... [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a very bad idea. I did note the deletion of the post at ANEW, but put it down to newbie foolishness. This sockpuppetry is the point of no return. All yoi had to do to receive a fair response was to acknowledge your transgressions in another unblock request and seek concensus or, failing that, accept that the individual is not suitable for inclusion. At this point, as a block evading sockpuppeteer, anything and everything you add will be reverted forthwith with extreme prejudice. Blackmane (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelHolmes, if you'd like to continue editing Wikipedia, I would suggest doing the following: Click on each of the following links and read them fully: WP:N, WP:BRD, WP:EW, WP:SOCK. Then, post another unblock request at the bottom of this page, indicating that you've read the aforementioned pages and comprehended them, and that you realize that your previous behavior violated Wikipedia policies, and that you'd like to be unblocked with the understanding that if you continue to violate Wikipedia policies, you will be immediately blocked again with a much lower chance of ever being unblocked. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 23:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lon Tay concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Lon Tay, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Lon Tay

Hello, MichaelHolmes36. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Lon Tay".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Lon Tay}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]