User talk:MrMeaning

Welcome!

Hello, MrMeaning, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't advertised or promoted anything. MrMeaning (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added references to two articles, when the reference is to a blog you appear to have created. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is. And I know self-published references understandably aren't considered reliable by Wikipedia, but my blogpost on this subject is well researched and authoritive. There's no other comparable source of information available. Have a look at it! MrMeaning (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The project is better served by citations to your sources directly than to your blog post. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My post is more comprehensive than any of my dozens of sources. My post's value as a source lies in its analysis of published source information. If you bothered to read it before describing it as "spam" you'd see what I mean. MrMeaning (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying issue is, it's your post. And when your post includes a comment along the lines of 'I've added this as a source, let's see how long it lasts,' it calls into question your motives for adding it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Wikipedia's rejection of self-published material as a reliable source. MrMeaning (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My motive was didacticism. My post is the best source available on this issue. MrMeaning (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your zealous admin has deprived wikipedians of this information. MrMeaning (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, please allow me to reinstate those references. MrMeaning (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Daryl Hannah, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings.Do not add links to your blog, even as a reference, to any article unless you get consensus for the change. At this time, there is clear consensus against adding your blog. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you, Fred. MrMeaning (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... You pompous jobsworth. MrMeaning (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal

Wikipedia's 'Appealing a block' page says, 'The preferred way to appeal a block is to place {{unblock|reason=Your reason here [[User:MrMeaning|MrMeaning]] ([[User talk:MrMeaning#top|talk]]) 07:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)}} on your talk page.' This is unclear to me. What do the pairs of curly brackets signify? Who knows? I'll try this:

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).

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

Request reason:

I've written a blogpost about the rumour of domestic violence involving the musician Jackson Browne and the actress Daryl Hannah. For a long time, Browne's Wikipedia entry made no mention of this incident. I recently noticed that it now does, with three references to published sources. I've covered all three sources in my post. None sheds much light. I signed up as a Wikipedia editor and added a link to my post, which is comprehensive, well researched and impartial. It aspires to journalistic standards. I also added a reference to my post from Hannah's entry, which now also mentions the incident, with the same three published references. My references were removed by admin and wrongly described as advertising, promotion and spam. After some discussion, I asked to be allowed to put them back. I put them back, and was then blocked. I know that Wikipedia - understandably - regards self-published sources as unreliable and therefore unacceptable. However, an exception should be allowed when, as in this case, the material is of an acceptable quality and is the only comprehensive source available. Have a look at it, and see what you think! It's at http://soothfairy.com/2015/03/29/jackson-browne-and-daryl-hannah. MrMeaning (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We get that you think you are a reliable source. Everyone does. However, the very fact that you believe your own original research trumps Wikipedia's policy on sourcing is the exact reason that you are blocked. Any unblock of your account will be conditional on an agreement from you that you will no longer add links to your own blog anywhere on Wikipedia. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:21, 16 March 2020 (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.

That's the kind of pompous jobsworth circularity that tells a wrongly convicted prisoner that the very fact that they maintain their innocence is the reason they continue to be detained. My blogpost is not only a reliable source - it's the only one. Read it. MrMeaning (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the "only" reliable source, then it's original research and may not be used. On the other hand, if there are three published sources that you cite in your blog post, then Wikipedia should cite those sources directly, not your blog post. Either way, your blog does not belong on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable published sources. MrMeaning (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I can't cite my own (self-) published source, another editor should cite it. MrMeaning (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want my blogpost to be cited in order to promote it. It's not monetised. If someone was referred to it by Wikipedia, I'd gain nothing. MrMeaning (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for wanting to improve my post's SEO ranking, I don’t need to. If you search for 'Jackson Browne Daryl Hannah', it's currently number two. MrMeaning (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last bit of advice from me. Just drop it!. As you've been told "Blogs" are NOT reliable sources, regardless of who's they're by or who tries to use them here. Your reference is not going to be added to those pages! You can Tweet your link. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 22:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last bit of advice from you? It's your first advice to me, actually. I get it - blogposts are unreliable. However, the three published sources linked are useless. My blogpost is useful. Make an exception. MrMeaning (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. WP:BLP is very clear. No reliable source, no inclusion in the article. You've already said there are no published reliable sources to back up the claims in your blog post. It is therefore unacceptable to "make an exception" for a blog post with nothing to back it up. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.