This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kethrus (talk | contribs) at 03:01, 17 September 2015 (→September 2015). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:01, 17 September 2015 by Kethrus (talk | contribs) (→September 2015)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
--SquidSK 18:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Melissa Chiu
The article Melissa Chiu has been proposed for deletion because under Misplaced Pages policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners or ask at Misplaced Pages:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
This makes no sense-- she is major cultural figure.
October 2013
Hello, Bgenocchio. We welcome your contributions to Misplaced Pages, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Benjamin Genocchio, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Misplaced Pages's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. This means that you are strongly advised not to edit the article directly; you are of course welcome at any time to propose improvements on the talkpage of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Bgennocchio. We welcome your contributions to Misplaced Pages, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Benjamin Genocchio and Melissa Chiu, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Misplaced Pages's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Bangabandhu (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Your edits to Melissa Chiu
Please do not delete well sourced, relevant content as you have done here. Bangabandhu (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Your edits to Melissa Chiu
I am responding only to your edits which are not neutral. You are deleting well sourced relevant content about a public institution put here by a third party-- look at the records. You are repeatedly inserting content into a post that 1. is clearly opinion based commentary and not neutral facts and 2. is not balanced with other sources that contradict information you have cited. Please stop this. Now you are trying to block users from editing.
September 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yunshui 水 12:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Bgenocchio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There is information published on this entry that is false and misleading. individuals are welcome to edit Misplaced Pages but not to introduce information that is not balanced. In order to try to stop proper sourcing and a blanked approach with neutral facts individuals have attempted to block legitimate edits. Neutral facts have been removed as well as sources which provide balance. Providing balance and multiple sources of information is the essence of the wikipedia project but right now individuals are seeking to control this. i have one wikipedia account under my own name, no more. i dont use anonymous accounts so my edits are visible and transparent. blocking me is censorship
Decline reason:
What is your relationship to User:1artlovernewyork, who was editing the same article from the same IP as you? --jpgordon 01:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Bgenocchio (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am related to the subject of the entry. I have not sought to hide that and it is not against wikipedia rules. What is against wikipedia rules is publishing false and misleading statements and this entry contains them. I am astonished that nobody who cares about wikipedia has looked at the revision history, citations and statements. Beginning 6 weeks ago an individual inserted statements and has systematically removed all attempts by ever other user to add balance, citations and to correct errors of fact. Do you honestly believe that every other person that has tried to improve this entry has a COI? Why for instance would anyone remove 4 New York Times references? Why would anyone remove well sourced content that contradicts opinion-based statements? The whole point of wikipedia is to provide balance. We are talking about a federal government institution. I am sorry if different people have used the same IP address to try to correct false statements. But what else can you do when somebody keeps blocking any and all attempts to make revisions. A written complaint was also made to Misplaced Pages management. I have no interest in editing this or other entries. I am done. I use my own name, i don't hide it. I only got involved because of what was clearly an attempt to pervert this entry and every time i tried to inert a link or information it was blocked and removed and the individual resinserted his own version. If anyone really, seriously believes wikipedia is about neutral facts and not the opinions of one person then you need to look at the facts and make an impartial determination or begin allowing other people who care to make changes-- this entry cannot be the property of one person. It is a mockery of the whole enterprise.Bgenocchio (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Since you state "I have no interest in editing this or other entries. I am done," there is no reason to unblock this account. OhNoitsJamie 18:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- You are aware of this, I assume? I will also note that Misplaced Pages is manned almost entirely by volunteers, not paid staff. (Employees have a "(WMF)" appended to their names, and very rarely edit with their employee accounts.) —Jeremy v^_^v 10:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock Dear Misplaced Pages editors. One month ago a user with the username Bangabandhu began editing the wikpiedia entry of my wife, melissa chiu, adding entirely negative commentary. i sought to try to balance that commentary and i was systematically blocked form doing so by this individual and another one with the username Justlettersandnumber. they claimed a conflict of interest. okay, thats fine. we complained to wikpiedia about their behavior. Now i see, as of a week ago, the same two individuals have started to edit my own personal wikipedia page no doubt as a form of retribution. i don't mind people editing the page, but in this case they have added factorial errors. here is the log record from my personal wikipedia page: (cur | prev) 14:22, 6 September 2015 Bangabandhu (talk | contribs) . . (6,512 bytes) (+593) . . (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 14:11, 6 September 2015 Bangabandhu (talk | contribs) . . (5,919 bytes) (+21) . . (→Italian government lawsuit) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 14:09, 6 September 2015 Bangabandhu (talk | contribs) . . (5,898 bytes) (-2) . . (→Italian government lawsuit) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 14:08, 6 September 2015 Bangabandhu (talk | contribs) . . (5,900 bytes) (-31) . . (readability) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 14:07, 6 September 2015 Justlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs) . . (5,931 bytes) (-29) . . (add 2 refs, some ce, add two versions of his departure from Blouin) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 13:40, 6 September 2015 Castlemate (talk | contribs) . . (5,960 bytes) (+28) . . (Ad education) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:37, 6 September 2015 Justlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs) . . (5,932 bytes) (-335) . . (some ce, needs a LOT more) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:28, 6 September 2015 Justlettersandnumbers (talk | contribs) . . (6,267 bytes) (-669) . . (rm unreferenced content - Misplaced Pages is built on independent reliable sources, and this is a WP:BLP) (undo | thank) They have added a statement that my previous employer claims they fired me, with al ink, but if you read the link you see in a following paragraph that the article states that i provided an email resignation letter to the reporter-- thesis printed in the story that is being used to make a citrate claim. In this case you have a clear published statement that is being overridden for personal interests and a claim that is clearly negative added to an entry. i would request please that all recent changes by these two unscrupulous wikipedia entries be removed form my account and they be blocked form editing my or melissa chi's account going forward. surrey wikipedia isn to to be used for personal vendettas against an individual or family. i invite you to review the records of both accountsBgenocchio (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)}}
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Dear Misplaced Pages editors Here below is the published record from the article that is being cited negatively in my wikipedia entry by two individuals that have sought to negatively edit my account and that of my wife. we have complained about them and they are now editing my account, as of a week ago. they have added an entry into my personal wikipedia account that is factually misleading and actually false. it states a former employer claims i was fired. That is fine, but if you read the link that they cite, the report states clearly that i provided evidence of the contrary, a letter of resignation circulated to staff as the report states--as a published fact. How then or why would somebody want to call this into question or put a contrary spin on this?
"Blouin, at first, was diplomatic regarding Genocchio’s upstart operation, passing along a, “All I can say to him is the best of luck.” But in the next breath she added, “Benjamin was fired. You want it. You got it.” There appears to be no love lost, here. “With any luck we will drive Louise out of business,” Genocchio said. When told that Blouin had said he was fired, he insisted that was wrong and produced a copy of his Dec. 12 resignation letter that circulated to staff."
I am requesting that somebody read the source cited, review the statement, and that this and other inaccurate or negative edits by the two individuals be reviewed and or removed. i cannot edit this myself otherwise i will be accused of a conflict of interest.
- There is a conflict of interest, but you aren't prohibited from editing. It appears that it may be there legitimately, to me it seems like WP:LUC is coming into play here. It's a good idea to discuss it on the articles talk page for someone to take a look at it though. --I am Kethrus 03:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)