User talk:Orthodox2014

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emmanuel Lemelson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington and Canonical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verifications

You've written an impressive biography of Emmanuel Lemelson, packed with impressive details and equally impressive citations. Unfortunately, almost none of your citations actually verify the facts which they cite. For example, when I see a statement that Lemelson's amvona.com site had 300,000 customers and 750,000 unique visitors, and when I see that statement referenced with three different citations, I'd expect at least on of those citations to actually verify any of those facts, but they don't. The same can be said for so many of the citations on this page. Now, admittedly, most of the citations do actually talk about Lemelson in some form or another, they just don't verify the claims of the article. The biggest problem that I see is the claim that Lemelson's report was the deciding factor in the WWE stock price tumble. My reading of the sources indicate that he may have been the one analyst who foresaw this trend, but there is no clear indication that his report was responsible for the stock price fall.

Overall, you appear to have engaged in "reference stuffing", padding the article with multiple references to make it appear impressive. In this case, that appears unnecessary: Lemelson appears to be a fairly impressive character without the reference stuffing. However, I would advise you to review your citations and pare the article down to use only those which actually verify the information at hand. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will do that. Orthodox2014 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Amvona.com statistics, which appear in the primary, not secondary, sources. I also have corrected and added several other references as it relates to his responsibility for the WWE stock correction. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox2014, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Orthodox2014! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Emmanuel Lemelson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

ceo/ "WWE News: Vince McMahon loses $350 million in one day, could be forced out as CEO," Inquisitr], Retrieved May 22, 2014.</ref><ref>[http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/05/20/when-will-the-
deal: The red wedding," by Sarah Barry James, SNL Financial, May 19, 2014], Retrieved May 22, 2014.]</ref><ref>[http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2068702-biggest-takeaways-from-wwes-may-19-business-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation overkill

I added Category:Citation overkill to two articles you are working on. Please read Wikipedia:Citation overkill and go back and merge as many of the citations in these articles as practical. Where possible without causing something that needs to be sourced to become unsourced, favor "more reliable" sources over "less reliable" ones ("more" and "less" are relative in this context - I'm assuming all of your sources are reliable, if they are not, get rid of them and the content that they back up). If you can do so without discarding "more reliable" sources and without causing something that needs a source to become unsourced, favor sources that give significant coverage to the topic of the article over those that are used to back up just a few small bits of information. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will do that. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that if a fact is already cited in the body of an article, there is no need to cite it in the lede introduction (unless it is a very grand or implausible claim). In fact I removed all of the inline citations from the lede intro and you have now added them all back again! They were largely links to articles by Lemelson, so have limited importance. Please try and make the article usable and readable, and avoid WP:CITEKILL. Thankyou. Sionk (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lemelson Capital Management for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lemelson Capital Management is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lemelson Capital Management 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. Sionk (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate this edit

I appreciate this edit, Orthodox2014. I still believe that this article should be deleted, and I assume that you still believe otherwise, but I am glad that you are not turning a deaf ear to other editors' concerns--it's all too easy to do so in these situations. This is an improvement, and if the article is kept, so much the better. Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lemelson

Hello again. I see that since I edited the two Lemelson articles to clean them up you've started editing a pre-clean-up version of one of them in your sandbox. Please don't overwrite the live article with this version: it's very clear from your actions since creating this account that you have an undisclosed conflict of interest regarding this topic. I've tagged the talk pages of the articles concerned – if you care at all about Wikipedia, why don't you admit your connection? Whether you do or not, I strongly recommend that in future you should confine your actions to requesting changes on the relevant talk pages. If you disagree with this, our dispute resolution page explains the actions you could take. —SMALL JIM 11:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to review your edits and keep any that seem reasonable, but you again have done wholesale removal of biographical content and associated references that only serve to leave the article incomplete and less properly referenced. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you denying that you have a conflict of interest here? —SMALL JIM 18:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no conflict of interest and my edits have been constructive. Your repeated removal of content and your failed, utterly unjustified deletion nomination of the Lemelson Capital Management page suggests you do. I am happy to work with you on consensus edits to the page, but that does not include just removing notable content and associated media references. Why precisely are you removing it? You offered no explanation to these edits, and they certainly appear destuctive in nature. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion nomination was made by Sionk, not me. I did comment there and the consensus decision was not what I suggested. However I'm content to go with the consensus, and if you review the comments made at that AfD (and those at the article talk pages), you'll see that my edits have been in accordance with the majority of opinions expressed.

Regarding the conflict of interest aspect, I'm sure that you do have one, so shall we ask for an informal third party opinion on that question? —SMALL JIM 18:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there was "No consensus", which means what it says. It doesn't preclude someone from nominating the article for deletion discussion again. Sionk (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here again! There's really no point in editing your sandbox copy as if you're going to put it into article space. If you want any changes made to the article, just request them here and someone will consider them – thanks! You could do some useful editing to other articles on topics that you're interested in; I think I've suggested that before. —SMALL JIM 16:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have suggested editing other pages, and I intend to do that. This was a glaringly missing article and the only reason I started with it. I do not, however, agree that you have the right the edit the page (removing content) and that my edits need to be restricted to the talk page. We both have equal opportunity to make constructive edits consistent with the editorial guidelines, and that's my only goal here. I believe you have removed content and references that are meaningful. And you never answered my question here a few days ago as to why. I also see some edits you made that I agree with, and I intend to incorporate them. Orthodox2014 (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't agree about COI, which is why I suggested a 3rd party opinion (though I'm not now sure if that would be the right venue – a report at WP:ANI may be more appropriate). I clearly answered your question in my reply of 7 May - for instance, most editors who have seen the article(s) consider them to have had far too many references. Have you read our policy on ownership? —SMALL JIM 17:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. It's the reasoning behind my earlier statement that we both have equal opportunity to edit the page consistent with the site's editorial guidelines. I don't necessarily disagree about references and will likely remove a few and see if there might be others since I last looked at this a year ago. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI

How would you like the question of your conflict of interest to be resolved? Of the five editors who have made more than one material comment on these topics, four – User:Sionk [1][2], User:Ravenswing [3][4], User:Davidwr [5], and me – have mentioned COI concerns. Only User:Hobbes Goodyear has not. You must be aware that just ignoring the issue or claiming that it isn't true is not enough. —SMALL JIM 20:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smalljim is right, at this point you cannot ignore the issue. You need to read and clearly understand Wikipedia's guidelines and policies including its Conflict of interest guideline. This is especially true if you do not actually have a conflict of interest, because by understanding this guideline you will understand why other editors see your behavior as likely indicating a conflict of interest (yes, "false positives" do occur). There are valid, non-COI reasons why a person might edit in a way that "looks like" he has a COI. Some of these reasons are what I call "pre-COI" and the editor who edits for these reasons needs to be very aware of Wikipedia's purpose, policies, and guidelines and very aware of his own motivations in editing so he does not cross the line.

An example of a "pre-COI" would be an editor with little or no Wikipedia experience choosing to write an article about a person or a company as a school project. After the semester ends, the student does more research on that person and continues editing the article. All is well and good, but the student later decides to write an independent-study paper or a thesis for academic credit or publication in a scholarly journal on the topic. Now we are getting into deep COI and WP:No original research territory, as the student's academic career and academic reputation is blurring with the goals of Wikipedia. Not only that, but there is a good chance that the student will develop a bias regarding the topic, perhaps even a strong bias bordering on "hero worship." If this "hero worship" happens, not only will it make him unsuitable to edit related topics in Wikipedia, a strong bias which is not checked-and-balanced by a professor or thesis review committee may lead to an academic paper which any professor or publication should reject due to bias issues.

The possibility of "Hero worshipping" a person or topic isn't limited to just students, it's something every Wikipedia editor who spends many hours (or man-days or man-weeks) researching a topic is likely to face. Experienced editors get to know themselves and their topics well enough to know when they are starting to lose objectivity on a given topic and either shift to other topics or take a break from editing. Those that don't wind up writing in a biased way, to the determent of the project. On a good day, the editor get "called out," which is generally good for the project and, if the editor is willing to ask himself "now why do other editors think I have conflict of interest, is it something about the way I am editing, perhaps?" and change their editing accordingly, good for the editor. On a bad day, nobody notices and the editor naively continues to harm both himself and the project. Maybe yesterday (May 9) was a good day for you and for Wikipedia.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no conflict of interest; my only stake is seeing well-developed, accurate, properly-referenced articles. My edits have not been overly critical of the subjects at all. Nor have they glorifying. They have been written completely objectively, properly referenced and well reviewed (as you point out) by multiple other editors. Both articles, even after those significant reviews, pretty closely resemble my initial drafts of both, suggesting further, I think, that my contributions have been decent and reasonable. My plan is not overly ambitious: Time permitting, I'd like to continue working on modest improvements to both articles in my sandbox, possibly restoring some notable deleted content and possibly adding anything newer since I last edited this a year ago. As I have done all along, those edits will be made consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, and I fully anticipate and welcome the review of my edits once I move them live. The allegation of a COI, I assume, stems from my not yet having created or edited many other articles. In retrospect, maybe I should have done that, and I will be doing so in the future. I just saw this as two pretty glaring omissions and opportunities to be helpful. But my approach is not just permitted, it's encouraged (see Ignoring all rules--a beginner's guide and be bold, for instance). Nothing in those guidelines suggests that my edits hold less weight because my editing history is less significant than other editors. Further, assume good faith and please do not bite the newcomers, both of which I've read, apply--which is to say, you should be welcoming, not critical, of my desire to contribute constructively. I am fine with referring this to dispute resolution to review, and I am going to refer it there myself right now since I have no COI and my edits have been and will continue to be accurate and consistent with editorial guidelines. Orthodox2014 (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox2014, I'm pleased that you've taken the first step towards resolving the COI issue. As the message below (under "DRN request") confirms, your request at DRN (and my replies) have been archived – in case you didn't see them, they're now here. I don't think that DRN was the correct venue anyway – it's for content disputes, which this isn't: we've hardly talked about article content at all. Anyway, assuming that you now want this resolved, I'm drafting a report for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and will let you know when it's posted. —SMALL JIM 21:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Here is my initial referral of the issue (below) to Dispute resolution and COI. Neither felt it was appropriate for those pages. I'm not even quite sure I understand your issue. You state above that you are not challenging my content edits. I've said I have no conflict, and I don't. I did ask if you had a conflict since you have seemed very obsessed with it. Never got a response from you on that to that. Let me ask again: Do you have a conflict? If you have no objection to my content, what precisely is your objection? I'm also, as I said previously, more than happy to work with you on any revisions or additions to the pages. I will repost it now on the Administrators' noticeboard.

My initial post to Dispute resolution and COI, now submitted to the Administrators' noticeboard:

Would appreciate your assistance. I have been an editor for a year and created the two articles above last year. I recently moved both to my sandbox so that I could make some modest improvements to both, including potentially restoring some content that was deleted for reasons largely unexplained and to potentially make other improvements, such as possibly adding new information in the year since I created both articles. Almost as soon as I moved both articles to my sandbox a few days ago, however, User:Smalljim began criticizing my involvement in the pages and saying that my contributions should be confined to the talk page. He has alleged that I have a conflict of interest, presumably because I dived into these two articles pretty aggressively and really have not had time yet to contribute much else. In reading Ignoring all rules--a beginner's guide and be bold, however, my approach seems permissible and encouraged. I have no conflict of interest and nothing about my edits has been unjustly critical or embellishing of the subject. In fact, despite review of both articles by multiple editors, the changes to my original drafts have been very modest and mostly cosmetic.

A lengthier exchange regarding all of this exists on my talk page. I am requesting that I be permitted to continue (time permitting) to make the modest modifications and additions to both articles in my sandbox and then, when I am comfortable that I've written them well and consistent with all guidelines, to move them live. I fully anticipate that my edits will be reviewed by others, and that's fine by me. I claim no ownership to the pages and am just looking to perfect what I believe to be two decent article contributions. Thanks very much for your attention and assistance. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you pre-empted me at ANI, I've responded on that page. Its nearly midnight over here, so I'm off to bed. Talk to you tomorrow :) —SMALL JIM 22:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

Hi, Orthodox, I'm "EE", and I'm just writing to let you know that I've volunteered to take on your case in the dispute resolution section. I hope we can come to some kind of agreement between you and Smalljim. Regards, EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 04:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRN request

The request for assistance regarding My contributions to Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management made at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard has been closed and archived because the request was made manually rather than through our listing form. Unfortunately, doing so breaks the page automation at DRN handled by a couple of bots and can't be allowed to remain in place. Any of the parties to the dispute should feel free to refile using the listing form available through the "Request dispute resolution" button at the top of the page, if dispute resolution is still needed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC) (current DRN Coordinator) (Not watching)[reply]

Thank you. I will refile it. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emmanuel Lemelson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canonical. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox version

Hello, Orthodox2014. You're not planning on replacing the current version of Emmanuel Lemelson with your sandbox version again, are you? —SMALL JIM 18:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. I will be addressing my revisions more specifically on the talk page. You also seem not at all inclined on working collaboratively with me to address whatever your concerns about the page actually are (correct?), so I am going to submit it to RFC and we can see if others agree or don't agree with the wholesale removal of notable comment, associated references and a paragraph labeled "public perception" that includes two quotes by hom and nothing related to his public perception. If you do wish to work with me on whatever your concerns are, I'm happy to withdraw that and see if we might reach a mutually acceptable resolution. In the meantime, please do not make any further substantive edits until we see how things go with RFC. I am disturbed that you seem to have a practice of stalking my edits, reverting them wholesale (often adding errors) and destructing the page with abrupt, inappropriate, often inaccurate edits. I project no ownership over this page, as I'm sure you allege, but nor do you, especially when you have not invested the research time to understand the subject, topic or appropriate editorial structure of this basically good article. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put all the blame on me. I'm merely being a little more persistent in following up the concerns voiced by quite a few other editors. You claim that you "project no ownership over this page" – explain, then, why you have persistently reverted everyone else's edits to the article. Are you the only one allowed to have an opinion on what the article should look like? If you take the time to read the edit summaries and the messages posted, you'll see plenty of valid reasons for editing the article away from your preferred version. —SMALL JIM 19:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have not reverted all other edits, but I have reverted most (not all) of the ones you just made because they include a vast removal of the article's foundation (his investment research and the associated impact of that research as reported in many major media outlets, which are properly cited).

As mentioned, I would much prefer to work with you collaboratively if that can be done to address your concerns, which seem vague, abrupt and destructive to the article. Let me know your thoughts. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm - to post a valid RfC you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. —SMALL JIM 19:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that you haven't persistently reverted everyone else's edits to the article, then you should refresh your memory by looking at the article's history. The evidence suggests that you won't let anyone collaborate with you because you won't accept anything but your own opinions. Why, for instance, are you not prepared to accept that the article has too many references, as a number of other editors have said? The guideline you keep quoting is just that, it's not a limit to push against – many others have behaved like this before you, enough to have earned the practice its own name: we call it wikilawyering. So after trying and failing to work together with you (since here), it would be fair to say that I prefer to collaborate instead with the several other experienced editors who have voiced opinions that your edits are contrary to the spirit of our policy/guidelines and demonstrate a conflict of interest.
By the way, the RfC still isn't complete, you need to re-add(*) the appropriate template to the section (which is supposed to be a neutral and brief description of the problem – it might be an idea to start another section altogether for the RfC!) —SMALL JIM 21:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(*) it was removed by Legobot - I'm not sure why.

Actually, I incorporated a good number of your edits, including the DOB to the intro, the complete removal of the sentence that you deemed "peacock language," the references that you felt were absent, the change you made in "Early Life and Education" (correcting a minor error in the exact quote) and incorporating the quote from The Wall Street Journal (which I'm not sure really serves any larger biographical purpose, but I incorporated it in deference to your work). So I've carefully reviewed edits made, though the wholesale removal of his investing research work is a centerpiece of this bioigraphy (certainly the most covered in major media) and the removal of it is just destructive and diminutive to the article. You seem to be suggesting that we are in disagreement over two versions of this article, but there's really the version that I did today (including the previously mentioned edits you offered that I included) and then what's there now, which is basically this article with a big hole blow right into the center of its content for no specified reason. I also made additional edits, format corrections, and cleanup in nearly ever section, which was removed in your wholesale reversion of the article, so in your abrupt reversion you've also removed those individual improvements. That leaves an article now missing the bulk of its substance and a bunch of improvements in nearly every other section of it.

So I suppose the question is: Would you take the time to review this revised version and offer your specific points on the talk page so they can be discussed? You seem to gravitate to some very unspecified objection with what you deem to be excessive media references, but their inclusion is not "lawyering." They're properly used to substantiate the article in ways entirely consistent with Wikipedia:Citing sources. Orthodox2014 (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox, you're making it too hard for SmallJim to work with you. In a new version in a sandbox you yourself may know that you made this and that concession, and you may feel you strike a Fair balance. But it is impossible, or outrageously laborious, for anyone else to decipher what you've done, ie what your proposal is. Small steps is the only way. Which is done best by proposing one tiny change at a time, at the talk page.

I also suggest strongly that you do some work in other areas, so you get some perspective. You can't tell when another person is being incredibly nice to you; you experience it as unfair, hypocritical, whatever.

I suggest participating in AFDs, say. Browse at Today's, Yesterday's, and other batches of AFDs linked from yellow navigation box within wp:afd. Pick any afd, vote and explain yourself, and then watch list it and see how others view the content and interact. You can learn a lot that way; try it! do ncr am 03:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Doncram: Thanks again for your involvement. I agreed we should be making changes incrementally section by section. That's why I agreed enthusiastically to that suggestion. Unfortunately, since then (about a week ago), I've been discussing my proposed revisions on the talk page (as I thought we had agreed) but Smalljim and GreenCardaMom (likely working in collaboration) are just forging ahead making their changes without such discussion. Nothing about either of their behavior suggests that they are "being nice." In fact, Smalljim has been disparaging toward the topic personally, demonstrating his strong POV toward the subject, an approach he has taken toward these two pages since the beginning (alleging, for instance, that the subject's not "divine", routinely misdefining policies that I've had to correct then responding that he was "joking" (which he wasn't), and he's consciously pursuing any opportunity to remove notable content about the subject's work in finance and theology while entering the most trivial content from obscure sources. I don't have the time to detail every one of these violations right now but please take a careful look through the Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management talk pages. You'll likely see what I'm referring to.

In fact, the edits being made by them right now on the Lemelson Capital Management page (again being made without any discussion) are straight up inaccurate. I will be making note of my concerns about these inaccuracies on the talk page. Little of what they are writing correlates with the references. Orthodox2014 (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Like I said, you cannot see how SmallJim has been incredibly nice to you. We agree that you cannot. Like I said, I suggest you get some experience elsewhere, and I predict your view will eventually change. And you perceive (erroneously IMHO) that others are unfair, have an agenda, are collaborating together (huh? Isn't that a good thing?), etc. I am saying you need some perspective.

Your credibility is low. Your proceeding by making just one point on a talk page would help you. You have not done that. What is your one point on the Emmanuel levinson talk page? Maybe you are di scussing five points in the Questions to you section. But you have not answered there, even where SmallJim suggests that your providing an explanation might salvage some credibility. On the LCM page, you seem to have a correct view that the HLSS section contained nonsense (obvious to me when I read it, so it must have misrepresented the sources). Make that point on talk page...okay you did though you wrote more than you needed to. Don't edit the section yourself, but rather let the correctness of your talk sink in. Your changing the article let them off the hook for acknowledging you, and it put your credibility back into question, because what you wrote is not good either. (Look at it...I believe it may have no inaccuracies but it pretty much says nothing important to say in encyclopedia for any general reader. I suspect you were trying to prove something to them (that you are accurate) and you lost sight of the goal. And now your talk page comment is undermined and can be ignored. I reiterate, make one point and stick with just that. Yes, this means that others' seemingly too-rapid editing gets in place for a while. Which is great for you, you can sit back and point out errors and make them do some work. Invest less, yourself, and build some cred.

To build some cred with me, prove to me that you have browsed any AFDs. Or are you positive I am an idiot for suggesting that? :) --do ncr am 04:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: No, I agree completely with you. I wanted to jump in and develop an article and spent about 18 months meticulously researching and writing these two pages, which I was surprised (given the volume of national media coverage) did not already exist. I have since joined several work groups and am now beginning to improve other articles and weigh in on AfDs. I do appreciate your consideration of what I think are the solid points I've made on both talk pages. If you consult this prior version of the Emmanuel Lemelson page [6], I think you'll see that it was generally a well-done article, accurate in all respects (no one has ever challenged the accuracy of anything), referenced (though some said overly so) and definitive. Edits since have generally been designed to reflect the personal views that Smalljim has expressed on the subject (see my points here, for instance: [7]). As you'll note, the stated goal of Smalljim and the two or so editors he's involved have been to diminish the subject by removing notable content, which they've done in the live version. Simultaneously, as you noted on my points about HLSS, the additions have been routinely inaccurate--that is, not a difference of views over editorial style but over the facts clearly established in the supporting references. I hope, as an experienced editor, you can get engaged in the discussion and with the edits because I do believe your input is neutral and valued. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 09:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, Orthodox2014. I came here after reading the thread you opened on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. The alert above of course concerns pages related to Emmanuel Lemelson. I've placed it here to make you aware that you can be topic banned from these pages, including talkpages and other discussions of the subject, if you persist in tendentious editing with respect to them. I see you deny having a conflict of interest, but it's clear that you do. Bishonen | talk 10:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think my edits have been tendentious. They've only been focused on getting it right, and even with this I've engaged these concerns almost exclusively on talk pages and a few work groups, not in edit wars.

Please carefully read the talk pages. Have you read thoroughly Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson, where I've raised extensive and significant issues and concerns, including questions about these fundamental inaccuracies that have systematically gone unanswered? Nothing in my edit history on this page has been inconsistent with any policy and, in fact, there is no contention regarding any substantive fact or the biographical nature of anything I've included. Since my withdrawal from the page several days ago, however, there has been an inclusion of content that is inaccurate, unsourced, POV-oriented and quite possibly libelous. I've continually invited other editors to participate in the page, including through focus groups. But as it stands now, this page is completely under the singular ownership of User:Smalljim, who appears to have no expertise in finance or religion and has stated his personal biases toward the subject very clearly both on the talk pages and in the substance of his edits. Read this carefully: [8] and this: [9] (if not the entire talk pages), and I suspect you'll agree I've raised some very reasonable, serious and still unsanswered questions. I'd invite you, as I have other editors, to get involved in the content of the page. It would benefit from having editors beyond Smalljim and me. Orthodox2014 (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the pages would benefit from more editors getting involved in content, but I'm afraid it won't be me, as my own interest is purely from the point of view of the uninvolved admin. However, I've read the posts you recommend and some more of the talkpages, and also this WP:ANI discussion from May 2015, that I found from some link in there. I was a little shocked by the ANI, and by the fact that no experienced user or admin had pulled you up sharply there about your battleground tone and many personal attacks. That happens, as ANI is a very busy noticeboard, and the volunteer admins running their eye down it to see where they can be useful will sometimes skip over a discussion with a rather dull-looking header (if you don't mind my saying so) and a lot of long posts, and move on to more concise threads and more colourful-sounding matters. It's understandable, but a pity in this case, as it may have given you the impression that character assassination and ascription of the worst possible motives are acceptable here. (Going by your recent posts on BLPN, you do have that impression.) They're not, and I would certainly have intervened sooner if I'd happened to see the ANI in May. I wish now that I'd focused on civil discourse rather than tendentious editing in my note above. You're aware of the guideline Assume good faith — you link to it repeatedly — please attend to it in your own editing.

If you feel accusations need to be made, please bring some evidence. As the No personal attacks policy says, serious accusations require serious evidence. For example, in point 5 in this post, that you have specifically directed me to, you say In reviewing the comments about Smalljim throughout his edit history, it's clear this is not the first, second or third time he has incited conflict with other editors and violated Wikipedia policies for administrators and users generally. The repeated complaints and concerns about his combative, often inaccurate editing style really require the attention of those managing and monitoring administrators. That really requires diffs. I'm sure Smalljim has been repeatedly complained about — all admins who have been around a few years have been, for reasons you can probably imagine — but as for "incit[ing] conflict with other editors and violat[ing] Wikipedia policies for administrators and users generally", that kind of unevidenced and baseless handwaving is a pure personal attack. Note also that "those managing and monitoring administrators" are the community — there is no layer of superadmins or "managers" above the regular admins. They can indeed be taken to the arbitration committee if they abuse their tools (for such claims, you'd very much better bring evidence), but arbcom, also consisting of volunteers, neither manages nor monitors. It hears complaints.

A related point: You say "libelous" above, and I make it 16 mentions of "libelous material" and "libel" by you in the BLPN discussion alone. That's not formally a legal threat, but at the very least it has a chilling effect. Please take a look at the policy No legal threats: It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous," that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention. To avoid misunderstandings, use less charged wording, such as “that statement about me is false and damaging, and I ask that it be corrected." Bishonen | talk 08:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Drop the stick

Orthodox2014, drop the stick. It's pretty obvious to me that you're related to the topic of the article (I won't take it any further than that however ) , therefore you have a COI in regards to this article. Drop it, edit elsewhere, or per the above discretionary sanction notice, you could find yourself topic banned from that article, trust me, you don't wan't to be topic banned at all. Drop it while you can. KoshVorlon 17:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Sionk (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing on and around the article Emmanuel Lemelson as well as persistent attempts to blacken the character of a Wikipedia editor, combined with increasingly risible denials of having a WP:COI. In lieu of responding in any way to my rather sharp warning above about your attacks against Smalljim, you have forged ahead with yet another attempt to blacken his character and reputation, posted in two places.[10][11] There is something very strange about seeing you, who display such a singular interest in promoting Emmanuel Lemelson on Wikipedia, and who have so far failed to convince a single user that you do not have a connection and a conflict of interest w r t Lemelson, write that "something about the subject … seems to rankle Smalljim, or perhaps he knows the subject personally" (!). You attempt to smear SJ with an elaborate comparison with the sitebanned editor User:Qworty, linking your final sentence to a Salon article about Qworty headed "Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia." That crude guilt-by-association tactic, that drags in by the heels a Wikipedia scandal which nobody but you has ever associated with Smalljim, is the last straw for me. Smalljim is not the subject of a biography here (at least as far as I know), but he's a living person for all that. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 25 January 2016 (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).

Orthodox2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Detailed response below. Do not believe I have violated any policies, and I'm committed to being a responsible editor. Block based on inaccurate allegation of shopping article in forums (I merely sought input of subject experts), conflict (I have none), an allegation that I was going to imminently override another editor's work (I said explicitly that I was merely working on sandbox improvements and seeking additional editor input) and "blackening the character of another editor" (we had differing views on edits explained in detail below but all related to editorial content and approach, and I likely took more blackening than I may have given. Nonetheless, nothing really personal).

Response

This response is my request that my editing ban be lifted. I also hope it addresses and resolves any concerns about my editing and makes clear my intent to be a constructive editor.

Background

I have been a primary author of two pages, Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management, since signing up as an editor. I authored both of these articles pretty meticulously, researching and reading a few hundred references and attempting to write both objectively and in accordance with all policies. They were both pretty excessively sourced, written in what I believe to be a balanced tone, and accurate (no allegation ever that they were/are not). In recent weeks, I was encouraged by other editors to get involved in more than just these two pages to broaden my involvement on the site, and I agreed to do that. I began improving pages, voting on AfDs, etc. as suggested. Also in recent weeks, there has been lengthy back and forth on the Emmanuel Lemelson talk page and, unfortunately, the editors involved and I did not see eye to eye. But I've allowed their edits to stand, never violated the revert rules, and have and am attempting to engage on the talk page with questions and suggestions to help make the articles accurate and as good as possible. A review of my work (summarized below), I think, will show that I have gone to great lengths to try to involve and work with other editors. My primary objections have been removal of the most important/encyclopedic parts of the articles, the insertion of trivial and even inaccurate information instead, and the general refusal by the primary other editor involved to be directly responsive to my specific questions and concerns about their work. While there clearly is not agreement on their edits, I've tried to address my points specifically and with a general sense of community, and that's been difficult when there has been little editorial common ground. I enjoyed creating these two articles, and I am committed to being a constructive editor on the site--and hopefully, at some point, a good one. In the course of the disagreement over the edits to these articles, there was disagreement but I did my best to act in ways described in the policies and guidelines, which I've read. I do not believe I have violated any policies or decorum of the site. But if I have, I am very committed to being responsive to that criticism and improving in any ways suggested.

History

I created these two articles in April 2014 after reading extensively about the subject matter. The articles were tweaked and edited by others in the time since, and most of those edits until recently seemed to be generally constructive. At some point, however, an editor User:Smalljim became involved and we have disagreed on most (not all) of his edits. When Smalljim first became involved, I went out of my way to thank him on his talk page for his input, and I asked him if he might help me on the article. He declined, calling it "an uninteresting topic" (though he would go on to pour himself into what I deemed and deem to be extensive and generally destructive edits). See my expression of gratitude and request in the "Lemelson Capital Management" section here: [12]. At some later point, another editor User:Sionk became engaged in both pages and seemed to be motivated mostly by defending Smalljim's edits, though he was not very involved otherwise. Sionk nominated the Lemelson Capital Management page for deletion, and that deletion request failed (I believe appropriately so given the high profile of the firm in sources and its meeting/exceeding notability guidelines). At that point, I reached out to Sionk, saying that I had read his failed deletion nomination and asked him if he might like to work with me to improve the article. He also showed no interest. See the "Lemelson Capital Management" section here for my request and his response: [13]. On the AfD itself, Smalljim voted to delete, saying that the substantive content on the firm's page regarding the subject's activism actually belonged on the personal page. See that point here: [14]. The current editorial conflict began on December 20 (many months after the failed AfD nomination) when Smalljim reappeared with a sweeping revert to a dated version many months earlier in which (completely contradicting his AfD comment) he actually removed the content from the personal page that he originally said in his earlier AfD vote it belonged. See this edit that removed all of it: [15]. At this point, I again asked Smalljim to work with me in addressing his concerns. See my request here: [16]. In addition to removing this notable content, Smalljim instead added other information that seemed vastly less encyclopedic and less notable, such as a part-time job the subject held in sixth grade, content about the vastly less notable early career of the subject, etc. Two other editors, Sionk (mentioned above) and User:Green Cardamom appeared and supported Smalljim's edits and also made some of their own edits. Some of the information added by these two other editors proved outright inaccurate, such as stating that the subject owned a stock the reference clearly said had been shorted, etc. My comment on some of these inaccuracies can be read here (see HLSS section): [17]. I pointed out how these edits (inaccuracies, removal of notable content, addition of fairly trivial content) were generally damaging the two articles. At no point did I ever project any ownership over either page (and I don't now either) or break any revert rules. When the article was reverted to Smalljim's diminished version and the two other editors supported that, I attempted to engage them on the talk page and to solicit the input of other editors with requests on about three work project pages relevant to religion and finance, which seem the primary areas here. My goal in doing that was to try to get more expert editors involved and to get a fresh assessment on whether I was completely misguided in my views that the Smalljim edits were not constructive. For the most part, questions and concerns I raised to Smalljim on the subject talk page went (and still are) unanswered with him not addressing my specific areas of question or concern. But I did not admittedly have any consensus that I was correct in my editorial outlook, so I allowed Smalljim's article version to stand when it became apparent no other editor was supporting or understanding my concerns. Smalljim's version continues to stand to this day. After raising my concerns on the talk page, I was encouraged when I felt we had an agreement that proposed edits would be discussed on the respective talk pages and made (with consensus) incrementally. I actively engaged in discussing changes made by Smalljim (some of which I supported and most of which I did not). In addition to being generally unaccepting and unresponsive to my questions and concerns, Smalljim articulated his own POV toward the subject on the talk page, including stating that the subject was "not as divine or important" as portrayed, subjectively labeling the subject a "self promoter" (no evidence of that really beyond standard press releases from the subject's firm on a few developments like you'd see from any company or firm) and stating (when I added a Fox Business video reference that was notable) that I was trying "to force people to gaze into Lemelson's hypnotic eyes and be swayed by his soothing voice." See point three of the concerns I raised on the talk page here: [18]. Smalljim further stated that he was going to cease explaining his edits on the talk page (as we initially agreed) and that his new goal was "making changes with edit summary explanations rather than raising them here first. Happy to discuss anything, of course, but I suspect that these two articles will soon sink back into relative obscurity."[19] Of course, he was happy to discuss with those who agreed with him. My input, questions and comments on the page were rejected with unresponsive commentary or ignored completely. When concerns were raised that I was only editing these two pages exclusively (which seems permissible), I was nonetheless responsive to that criticism and began additional edits and voting on AfDs. And all the while, I allowed Smalljim's version of the article to stand and have restricted my input to questions and concerns on the talk page. I have not (as alleged) engaged in shopping the article in forums. I added the article to a few relevant work groups, asking that editors with subject expertise take a look at the articles and offer their own input on them. I did this with the intention of building objective consensus (whether that supported or did not support my views). Discussion back and forth on the talk page between Smalljim (another stated basis for my suspension) shows disagreement over the edits and perhaps that could have been better handled by both of us. Clearly, Smalljim has not assumed good faith on my part, and I suppose I ultimately came (based on his POV talk page comments, stated goals, early and continued refusal to work with me, and diminishing edits) to not assume it on his part. That may be an area where both of us could have conducted ourselves more constructively.

Banning

In the final comments before my ban a few days ago, Smalljim wrote on the subject talk page that he was going to ignore my questions and concerns. At that point, I summarized my concerns on the talk page and stated that I was going to move what I saw as the last accurate version of the article to my sandbox where I would continue to try to improve it and also continue to solicit (as I have from day one) other editors' input on it. I also placed a tag showing that it was not a live page and was under construction. I had absolutely zero intention (as alleged and a basis for my suspension) of moving the article live without adequate consensus (which I did not have as of the suspension). This last entry of my concerns was met with an "indefinite ban" on my account with an allegation that I was "shopping" for support in forums and that I intended to imminently override Smalljim's live version. I was not shopping for any support. I asked exclusively for input from editors with subject expertise. I also stated that my version [20] was a work document and that I was soliciting other editors' input on it. There was no mention and no intent to move it over as a live version and I would not have done that without a great degree of consensus. And my last set of concerns that I summarized on the talk page right before the ban was collapsed so they cannot be easily read. See here: [21].

Resolution

I enjoy and respect Wikipedia and feel I am developing as an editor. I don't feel I violated any policies or guidelines. Nor at any point have there have been any questions about the accuracy of my content. And throughout the process, I asked for substantive responses to my questions, including from the editor who most heatedly opposed my edits, and those requests were mostly ignored. When encouraged to get involved in editing other pages too, I was agreeable and began doing that. The editing conflict on the talk page could have been more congenial on everyone's part (likely including my own), and I suppose that includes not just my own comments but the small number of editors who opposed my edits, who made allegations, did not assume good faith on my part, and ultimately banned me to shut down the entire discussion. I'm committed to being a constructive editor and would like the ban lifted and appreciate your assistance. I'm also very open to being responsive if I have acted in contradiction of any policies, but I'm not readily seeing that. I believe what we have here is an abrupt effort to shut down the debate by suspending my account as opposed to doing the work that would be associated with answering my detailed and reasonable questions and concerns. I very much appreciate your assistance and am committed to being a constructive Wikipedian. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been warned to stop attacking other editors, and you persisted. Your COI is also painfully obvious. If you submit another unblock request I suggest you make it much more concise and to-the-point; no one is going to read an unblock novella. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:33, 28 January 2016 (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.

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).

Orthodox2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm submitting this more abbreviated appeal since my earlier first version (see below) was apparently too lengthy for full consideration. One of the primary allegations in my suspension seems to be that I was not working collaboratively with other editors on the two articles I developed, but that's not true. I thanked them when they first became involved (see how I greeted Smalljim's involvement here: [24] and see how I greeted Sionk's involvement here: [25], incorporated the edits of theirs that seemed reasonable, agreed to discuss and edit the article incrementally (until that approach was discarded by others) and engaged with them extensively in raising my questions and concerns on the talk page. When it was apparent that I was alone in my view that Smaljim's version of the article (which seems to include inaccuracies, removed the article's most substantive content and instead added trivial content) required revisions, I made it clear that I was allowing his version of the article to stand and was addressing my concerns on the talk page and my own work document in my sandbox. I asked that my sandbox work version be evaluated by them and I also posted to relevant subject expert groups asking for their involvement. That is not, as alleged, "shopping" for support. I said in my posts that I sought the input of others, not the support of others. My suspension alleges that I was "imminently" preparing to move my sandbox version live, which I explicitly said I would not do without additional input and consensus (which had not been developed as of the suspension). So the allegation that I was preparing to imminently move my work document to the live page is also untrue. I started these two articles after reading extensively about the subject. While I have education in the field, I have no conflict, as I made clear previously. When I was advised to edit pages other than these two (which didn't seem a policy-based obligation on my part), I agreed and was responsive to that and have begun adding constructive edits to other pages, voting on AfDs, etc. Still, there appears to be a failure to assume good faith despite the fact that both articles I developed were factual, well referenced and unquestioned as to matters of fact. There has been disagreement on the talk page about edits, where I have been criticized and the subject addressed in strong POV terms (see my points below). I've responded to these with substance, not any "personal attack." But in an apparent effort to avoid the work associated with answering my questions, observations and suggestions, that discussion was shut down with an abrupt, indefinite suspension of my account by one editor and my substantive questions and comments wrongly dismissed as a "personal attack." The suspension and especially the duration of it is unwarranted. I'm asking that the suspension be lifted and (if I'm missing anything) that I be provided with more specific guidance as it relates to ensuring I'm operating constructively, which certainly is my intent. Thanks for your assistance.

Decline reason:

Rarely have I seen somebody say so little with so many words. You are showing a clear conflict of interest and you have engaged in hostile behaviour with other editors. For an unblock request to have any significant likelihood of being accepted you will have to address those issues. The fact that you wrote "I don't feel I violated any policies or guidelines" tells me those issues are far from addressed. And if you think think unblock request was "abbreviated" then you need a lesson in being concise. HighInBC 16:49, 30 January 2016 (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.

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).

Orthodox2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have zero conflict of interest, as I addressed in detail in my response. In fact, when that allegation first emerged over a year ago as a reaction to differing views on content, I pro-actively referred it to the conflict of interest discussion page because there is no conflict. From there, it was subsequently sent to a dispute resolution page, where there was (correctly) no finding of any conflict of interest. In fact, there has not been even one example of any of my content that has been found improperly referenced, or inaccurate. And there has been no personal hostility demonstrated toward anyone, as I also addressed. And, as I stated, if I am missing something, I'd like the opportunity to understand that and take corrective steps. I really don't get the sense my response has even be read. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Bishonen has explained the problems with your conduct in detail above. If your response to that is to continue in the same vein and then claim "It didn't happen", you will not be unblocked. Huon (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2016 (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.

More detailed response

This response is my request that my editing ban be lifted. I also hope it addresses and resolves any concerns about my editing and makes clear my intent to be a constructive editor.

Background

I have been a primary author of two pages, Emmanuel Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management, since signing up as an editor. I authored both of these articles pretty meticulously, researching and reading a few hundred references and attempting to write both objectively and in accordance with all policies. They were both pretty excessively sourced, written in what I believe to be a balanced tone, and accurate (no allegation ever that they were/are not). In recent weeks, I was encouraged by other editors to get involved in more than just these two pages to broaden my involvement on the site, and I agreed to do that. I began improving pages, voting on AfDs, etc. as suggested. Also in recent weeks, there has been lengthy back and forth on the Emmanuel Lemelson talk page and, unfortunately, the editors involved and I did not see eye to eye. But I've allowed their edits to stand, never violated the revert rules, and have and am attempting to engage on the talk page with questions and suggestions to help make the articles accurate and as good as possible. A review of my work (summarized below), I think, will show that I have gone to great lengths to try to involve and work with other editors. My primary objections have been removal of the most important/encyclopedic parts of the articles, the insertion of trivial and even inaccurate information instead, and the general refusal by the primary other editor involved to be directly responsive to my specific questions and concerns about their work. While there clearly is not agreement on their edits, I've tried to address my points specifically and with a general sense of community, and that's been difficult when there has been little editorial common ground. I enjoyed creating these two articles, and I am committed to being a constructive editor on the site--and hopefully, at some point, a good one. In the course of the disagreement over the edits to these articles, there was disagreement but I did my best to act in ways described in the policies and guidelines, which I've read. I do not believe I have violated any policies or decorum of the site. But if I have, I am very committed to being responsive to that criticism and improving in any ways suggested.

History

I created these two articles in April 2014 after reading extensively about the subject matter. The articles were tweaked and edited by others in the time since, and most of those edits until recently seemed to be generally constructive. At some point, however, an editor User:Smalljim became involved and we have disagreed on most (not all) of his edits. When Smalljim first became involved, I went out of my way to thank him on his talk page for his input, and I asked him if he might help me on the article. He declined, calling it "an uninteresting topic" (though he would go on to pour himself into what I deemed and deem to be extensive and generally destructive edits). See my expression of gratitude and request in the "Lemelson Capital Management" section here: [22]. At some later point, another editor User:Sionk became engaged in both pages and seemed to be motivated mostly by defending Smalljim's edits, though he was not very involved otherwise. Sionk nominated the Lemelson Capital Management page for deletion, and that deletion request failed (I believe appropriately so given the high profile of the firm in sources and its meeting/exceeding notability guidelines). At that point, I reached out to Sionk, saying that I had read his failed deletion nomination and asked him if he might like to work with me to improve the article. He also showed no interest. See the "Lemelson Capital Management" section here for my request and his response: [23]. On the AfD itself, Smalljim voted to delete, saying that the substantive content on the firm's page regarding the subject's activism actually belonged on the personal page. See that point here: [24]. The current editorial conflict began on December 20 (many months after the failed AfD nomination) when Smalljim reappeared with a sweeping revert to a dated version many months earlier in which (completely contradicting his AfD comment) he actually removed the content from the personal page that he originally said in his earlier AfD vote it belonged. See this edit that removed all of it: [25]. At this point, I again asked Smalljim to work with me in addressing his concerns. See my request here: [26]. In addition to removing this notable content, Smalljim instead added other information that seemed vastly less encyclopedic and less notable, such as a part-time job the subject held in sixth grade, content about the vastly less notable early career of the subject, etc. Two other editors, Sionk (mentioned above) and User:Green Cardamom appeared and supported Smalljim's edits and also made some of their own edits. Some of the information added by these two other editors proved outright inaccurate, such as stating that the subject owned a stock the reference clearly said had been shorted, etc. My comment on some of these inaccuracies can be read here (see HLSS section): [27]. I pointed out how these edits (inaccuracies, removal of notable content, addition of fairly trivial content) were generally damaging the two articles. At no point did I ever project any ownership over either page (and I don't now either) or break any revert rules. When the article was reverted to Smalljim's diminished version and the two other editors supported that, I attempted to engage them on the talk page and to solicit the input of other editors with requests on about three work project pages relevant to religion and finance, which seem the primary areas here. My goal in doing that was to try to get more expert editors involved and to get a fresh assessment on whether I was completely misguided in my views that the Smalljim edits were not constructive. For the most part, questions and concerns I raised to Smalljim on the subject talk page went (and still are) unanswered with him not addressing my specific areas of question or concern. But I did not admittedly have any consensus that I was correct in my editorial outlook, so I allowed Smalljim's article version to stand when it became apparent no other editor was supporting or understanding my concerns. Smalljim's version continues to stand to this day. After raising my concerns on the talk page, I was encouraged when I felt we had an agreement that proposed edits would be discussed on the respective talk pages and made (with consensus) incrementally. I actively engaged in discussing changes made by Smalljim (some of which I supported and most of which I did not). In addition to being generally unaccepting and unresponsive to my questions and concerns, Smalljim articulated his own POV toward the subject on the talk page, including stating that the subject was "not as divine or important" as portrayed, subjectively labeling the subject a "self promoter" (no evidence of that really beyond standard press releases from the subject's firm on a few developments like you'd see from any company or firm) and stating (when I added a Fox Business video reference that was notable) that I was trying "to force people to gaze into Lemelson's hypnotic eyes and be swayed by his soothing voice." See point three of the concerns I raised on the talk page here: [28]. Smalljim further stated that he was going to cease explaining his edits on the talk page (as we initially agreed) and that his new goal was "making changes with edit summary explanations rather than raising them here first. Happy to discuss anything, of course, but I suspect that these two articles will soon sink back into relative obscurity."[29] Of course, he was happy to discuss with those who agreed with him. My input, questions and comments on the page were rejected with unresponsive commentary or ignored completely. When concerns were raised that I was only editing these two pages exclusively (which seems permissible), I was nonetheless responsive to that criticism and began additional edits and voting on AfDs. And all the while, I allowed Smalljim's version of the article to stand and have restricted my input to questions and concerns on the talk page. I have not (as alleged) engaged in shopping the article in forums. I added the article to a few relevant work groups, asking that editors with subject expertise take a look at the articles and offer their own input on them. I did this with the intention of building objective consensus (whether that supported or did not support my views). Discussion back and forth on the talk page between Smalljim (another stated basis for my suspension) shows disagreement over the edits and perhaps that could have been better handled by both of us. Clearly, Smalljim has not assumed good faith on my part, and I suppose I ultimately came (based on his POV talk page comments, stated goals, early and continued refusal to work with me, and diminishing edits) to not assume it on his part. That may be an area where both of us could have conducted ourselves more constructively.

Banning

In the final comments before my ban a few days ago, Smalljim wrote on the subject talk page that he was going to ignore my questions and concerns. At that point, I summarized my concerns on the talk page and stated that I was going to move what I saw as the last accurate version of the article to my sandbox where I would continue to try to improve it and also continue to solicit (as I have from day one) other editors' input on it. I also placed a tag showing that it was not a live page and was under construction. I had absolutely zero intention (as alleged and a basis for my suspension) of moving the article live without adequate consensus (which I did not have as of the suspension). This last entry of my concerns was met with an "indefinite ban" on my account with an allegation that I was "shopping" for support in forums and that I intended to imminently override Smalljim's live version. I was not shopping for any support. I asked exclusively for input from editors with subject expertise. I also stated that my version [30] was a work document and that I was soliciting other editors' input on it. There was no mention and no intent to move it over as a live version and I would not have done that without a great degree of consensus. And my last set of concerns that I summarized on the talk page right before the ban was collapsed so they cannot be easily read. See here: [31].

Resolution

I enjoy and respect Wikipedia and feel I am developing as an editor. I don't feel I violated any policies or guidelines. Nor at any point have there have been any questions about the accuracy of my content. And throughout the process, I asked for substantive responses to my questions, including from the editor who most heatedly opposed my edits, and those requests were mostly ignored. When encouraged to get involved in editing other pages too, I was agreeable and began doing that. The editing conflict on the talk page could have been more congenial on everyone's part (likely including my own), and I suppose that includes not just my own comments but the small number of editors who opposed my edits, who made allegations, did not assume good faith on my part, and ultimately banned me to shut down the entire discussion. I'm committed to being a constructive editor and would like the ban lifted and appreciate your assistance. I'm also very open to being responsive if I have acted in contradiction of any policies, but I'm not readily seeing that. I believe what we have here is an abrupt effort to shut down the debate by suspending my account as opposed to doing the work that would be associated with answering my detailed and reasonable questions and concerns. I very much appreciate your assistance and am committed to being a constructive Wikipedian. Orthodox2014 (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note from the blocking admin

Orthodox2014, it's mystifying to me that you keep stating you were blocked for forum shopping and for "intending" to override another editor's work. The second is a pretty unlikely block reason IMO — I wouldn't block people for their supposed intentions — and forum shopping isn't a heinous infraction either. Yet you repeat those supposed block reasons in each successive unblock request:

[I was blocked] "based on inaccurate allegation of shopping article in forums … and an allegation that I was going to imminently override another editor's work."
"This last entry of my concerns was met with an "indefinite ban" on my account with an allegation that I was "shopping" for support in forums and that I intended to imminently override Smalljim's live version."
"My suspension alleges that I was "imminently" preparing to move my sandbox version live".

And yet I have alleged nothing of the kind in my detailed warning[32] or in my block rationale[33] or anywhere else. Never mentioned these things. Are you not aware that I — me — blocked you, and that the reasons I gave for blocking you are what you should be engaging with? Do read them, and stop defending yourself against things you weren't blocked for; it's a waste of time and wears out the patience of the reviewing admins, who will surely revoke your talkpage access soon. To recapitulate, as clearly as I can, I blocked you for two things: your egregious campaign to blacken the character of another editor, and your obvious conflict of interest, which you deny against all common sense. Note that Wikipedia is not a quasi-judicial body; common sense is good enough here, and has so far been good enough for all Wikipedia editors you have met. I hope this is clear enough, because I won't repeat it again. Bishonen | talk 22:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Response: Thanks. I just want to be clear that I understand and agree not to comment on other editors. I totally agree with that, and I am hereby committed to not doing it. Not sure how to further address the conflict issue. I don't have one. I addressed the other issues because Sionk referenced them on the Administrators' noticeboard here: [34]. Thanks for clarifying that it didn't needed to be addressed here. I'd like to hear back from you before I file the unblock request. I do appreciate your assistance! Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you need to address not only whether you have a COI, but also the signs that have made everybody think you have, i. e. the passion and obstinacy with which you have edited to promote Lemelson, and try to explain instead of denying it. Compare for instance User:Davidwr's thoughtful and very good-faith-assuming post to you above, as early as May 2015: one of many good opportunities for you to try to put yourself in other editors' shoes and to understand why they see you as they do. You failed to seize it,[35] to put it mildly: in your reply, you rebuffed Davidwr and linked to WP:BITE (and a heap of other policies), presumably to claim special consideration as a newbie — after editing for a year! — and I suppose you were already revolving in your mind the regrettable WP:ANI report the next day, where you compared Smalljim to Joe McCarthy, etc.[36] From then on, you seem to have become increasingly convinced that people are in a conspiracy against either you or the article subject: you have proposed a theory that Smalljim may have a real-life grudge against Lemelson, and then his buddies turn up to agree with him ("We know that the editors who have been supporting Smalljim have worked together often and over a long period of time on other pages"[37]), and that's why they believe, or say they believe, you have a COI. These two ideas — that Smalljim is a corrupt editor, and that other people are following him like sheep — have been obvious in your commentary on WP:BLPN and are still obvious in your unblock requests, which have done you no favors. I'm not sure the next reviewing admin will be prepared to overlook all that, but you can try, with a new approach, and if they are, I'll be happy to leave it in their hands. You don't need to abase yourself or apologize — nobody wants that — but you need to show a real change of attitude. Agreeing to not comment directly on other editors isn't going to cut it, because everybody can see what you can do with passive aggression in your three unblock requests above. A suggestion: you can read about topic bans here. If you yourself were to suggest a topic ban from Emmanuel Lemelson in lieu of the block, that might convince the next admin, and you'd then still be able to edit Wikipedia on other subjects. Bishonen | talk 08:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Response: Thanks very much for the helpful response. I am going to file again based on your guidance and reiterating that I am committed to not commenting on other editors and addressing the conflict allegation. I am very committed to being a responsible editor here and hope the next administrator will see my commitment to that. I really appreciate your feedback and guidance. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2016 (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).

Orthodox2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am filing this appeal with a request that my indefinite ban on editing be removed. I've benefited from some guidance on the specific area(s) of concern and want to resolve them. First, I am hereby committed to not commenting on other editors. I could have done a better job with that in the talk page discussions, and I definitely will do better going forward. Second, on the conflict, it appears to me that my approach here has been hugely unconventional. I started my account and dived into the creation of two articles. My own thinking at the time was that I wanted to create article(s) as opposed to refining other ones already created but that singular focus and engagement was in retrospect not the best approach. I have taken a corrective step on this, and am offering yet a further one with this request. Over the last month, in response to the suggestion that I become engaged with editing and contributing to other pages, I have begun doing that and also voting on AfDs. In retrospect, I should have done this from the beginning. Finally, I'm conscious (and will be especially so going forward) that edits cannot be promotional. If my account is restored, I would continue working to contribute constructively to pages other than these two and limiting my future contributons to the two pages I created to constructive input on the respective talk pages and work on a sandbox version others can assess. I will not edit these two live pages unless there is a consensus for any changes, and there's no such consensus now, which means I will not be making any changes to either of them unless that develops I am very committed to contributing constructively and will ensure, if afforded the opportunity to become reinvolved, that's evidenced in my future contributions. Thanks very much. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At this point, with everything taken into full consideration including your newly found tone when approaching this issue, I still do not feel comfortably with unblocking you. Words can be written in any manner of ways towards any goal, and while I wish I could trust that you will indeed not take the same roads as you have in the past... the fact that you attempted to blacken the character of another editor (and more relevantly, the way you went about doing so) is a very serious problem. However, I do feel enough faith in your seemingly good faithed intentions to move forward from this point to give you the WP:STANDARDOFFER. So if you can prove, through action, that you can abide by this current editing restriction for 6 months (without socking), and upon the coming of that time still continue to show your willingness to abide by policy, then I will consider unblocking you at that time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:45, 7 March 2016 (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.

Thank you. I've waited six months since the block and would greatly appreciate your unblocking me. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2016 (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).

Orthodox2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have waited the suggested six months and would appreciate being unblocked. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In a week, I don't see any offers to unblock you without the topic ban mentioned below. I'm sorry - but it seems that no one is willing to do so without it. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:57, 19 July 2016 (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.

Would you be willing to agree not to edit Emmanuel Lemelson and related pages if you are unblocked? Grayfell (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no immediate plans on edting that page but would like all restrictions lifted on my account. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone will unblock you unless you agree on a topic ban of that page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, having observed the edits leading up to your block, you have a choice between agreeing to a topic ban on Emmanuel Lemelson and all related pages, or staying blocked. Up to you.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no immediate plans of editing that page. My suspension was related to talk page interaction, not that page, so I'm requesting the full restriction lifted. I've waited the suggested six months. Orthodox2014 (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2016 (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).

Orthodox2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Suspension was related to talk page interaction, which I have acknowledged above, and which I've promised not to repeat. I was asked to wait six months before requesting the suspension be lifted, which I've done. Thanks very much. Orthodox2014 (talk) 5:00 pm, 23 July 2016, Saturday (16 days ago) (UTC+2)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. No response in 3 days. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2016 (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.

Since I reviewed this block back in February I won't review another unblock request, but I'll have to note that your assertion above that you block rationale that say you're blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing on and around the article Emmanuel Lemelson as well as other issues is "not related to that page" seems incorrect. Huon (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox2014, you've been already told that the only way to get unblocked is to agree to a topic ban on Emmanuel Lemelson. If you agree to this, you will be able to appeal the topic ban after a year. You will have a year to show that you are able to edit productively. Do you agree to that? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree to it. Thanks for your assistance. Orthodox2014 (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please. make a new unblock request and state clearly in the request that you agree to the topic ban. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orthodox2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As requested above, I agree to not edit the Emmanuel Lemelson page, though I will request removal of this topic ban in August 2017. Orthodox2014 (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Accepted under the condition you agree to below. You are indefinitely topc-banned regarding Emmanuel Lemelson broadly construed. You may appeal this ban with the community after 1 year. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that a topic ban is not limited to a single page? Your ban would cover not only Lemelson and Lemelson Capital Management but also any other related pages or parts of pages, broadly construed, per WP:TBAN. That would also include the rest of Wikipedia, such as talk pages, edit summaries, deletions discussions, and similar. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand and agree to that. Orthodox2014 (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Lawrence. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jane Austen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jane Austen. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Orthodox2014. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Rafael Díez de la Cortina y Olaeta

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rafael Díez de la Cortina y Olaeta. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Robert Plant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Plant. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]