Versability, this is not personal, but merely an attempt to abide by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and eradicate self-promotion, such as the inclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Penny a page that you created. This warrants Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spatuletail (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree this needs conflict resolution. It's not personal at all. You attempted to remove neutral information that was clearly and well cited simply because it didn't agree with Assurant's PR line. This is unacceptable and against Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I welcome the dispute resolution process. Versability (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Versability: You have a conflict of interest. In order to abide by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, contributing information that constitutes a conflict of interest is not in Wikipedia's best interest. You consistently

1. edit articles with information directly related to you; and
2. link to the Wikipedia article or website about yourself, that you created (see Wikipedia:Spam). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spatuletail (talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Versability: If you are affiliated with some of the people you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In order to abide by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, contributing information that may constitute a conflict of interest are not in Wikipedia's best interest. If you have a conflict of interest regarding an edit that you are making, plese exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles with information direclty related to you; and
2. linking to the Wikipedia article or website about yourself, that you created (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view and verifiability of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spatuletail (talk • contribs) 18:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Brian Penny has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the 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. The Interior (Talk) 00:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Biographies of Living Persons prods from an article unless it contains at least one reliable source or was created before 18 March 2010, as you did with Brian Penny. If you oppose the deletion of an article under this process, please consider sourcing the article or commenting at the respective talk page. Thank you. The Interior (Talk) 01:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brian Penny 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/Brian Penny 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. The Interior (Talk) 01:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Versability. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to you, your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the guidelines on autobiographies and fully understand. I believe the information contained in the article remains fully within the policies and am 100% ok with it being edited beyond my control. The article has been properly cited using verifiable references, and therefore I see no reason for it to be deleted. Versability (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually it hasn't been properly cited - the citations should be sources all the information in the article, not just evidence the subject exists. I can't see any dates of birth, employment history, education history or even connection to the occupy protests in the cited sources. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ugh...ok, I see what you're saying now...I'll try again later when it's better documented... thanks and sorry! Versability (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No problems - The referencing and notability guidelines can make it a bit of a painful process to create new articles, but it saves on arguments in the long run (You wouldn't believe how hard it can be to find sources for really obvious things; like the facts that pit-bulls can be dangerous). -Even then people will still argue when its in black and white; see Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars for how frustrating it can be.. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

haha, I gotcha...it's all good...got a couple things in the works...I'll be back... ;) Versability (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks! Welcome to Wikipedia!

Agent 78787 ^{talk contribs} 02:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the edit summary by the editor who removed it..... see WP:ES for where to find the edit summary.

Ariconte (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Brian Penny requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Crowsnest (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brian Penny 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/Brian Penny (2nd nomination) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Crowsnest (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that is how Wikipedia is supposed to work; by concsensus :).

Lectonar (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 8 September 2013 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Brian_Penny. JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your vile and contemptible article in the Patriot Ledger advertising the ways in which you have been abusing Wikipedia, and urging others to do the same, to the great detriment of this project, has left several editors suggesting that you be blocked indefinitely until and unless the Patriot Ledger publishes a full retraction by you, one which makes it clear that you realize the gravity of what you have done in writing that... steaming pile of falsehood. I am reluctant to do that, even though I'm considered one of our more militant admins about spamming and self-promotion, because some of your other edits have been sound. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mike, far from being "sound" edits, this editor has inserted his own name into every article he has ever edited, then accused other editors of working for the institutions in question when they have reverted his clearly self-promotional edits.[1] --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, print a retraction...Homie, I make a living writing for some very large outlets. I don't even know who the Patriot Ledger is. All I can tell you is it's one of the dozen or so outlets that "vile" and "contemptible" blog is syndicated on. Not only am I never writing a retraction, I'm going to pay my bills for the rest of the year dissecting how wrong it is for Wikipedia editors to remove sound and well-cited articles simply because of a personal bias about how their site works. Never fear transparency. Your ban does nothing but make me laugh...I've been banned from way better places than this, turbo. Versability (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article may have been well-cited, but unfortunately Brian, you simply don't meet the notability criteria. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I met it just fine until I mentioned my article outside of Wikipedia. You're extending your powers well beyond your realm of control, mall cop. If you wouldn't remove Lil Wayne for saying "I'm so hot, I'm on Wikipedia" as a rap lyric in one of his songs, then how can you justify removing a writer? I'm the entire first page for any search engine's results for the name "Brian Penny". You want notability? Google me. Maybe check the other pages my name appears on. Are you seriously telling me Fat&Happy doesn't work for Bank of America? That you're willing to disregard legitimate government, academic, and media sources simply to prove your rule is a bit totalitarian, IMHO. This is the very definition of personal bias http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias?&o=100074&s=t Versability (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googling you just seems to bring up a load of blog articles you've written. Do you meet the criteria laid down at WP:NWRITER? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A little early to be invoking Godwin's Law, isn't it? After all, you AGREED when you signed up to this private website to not write about yourself. The "true" invocation of "being a Nazi" might be the personal belief your own interests rise above those of the community as a whole - so in that, I might agree about the Nazi regime comment you made on WP:REFUND ES&L 15:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the point isn't that the article is autobiographical, it's that it was reviewed for that and approved on multiple occasions prior to this. The only reason it got removed now is because I talked about how I did what I did? Does that sound like Wikipedia is unbiased to you? Versability (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not biased. Flawed. If Wikipedia was more efficient, your self-serving violations of policy would have been discovered earlier. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Homie" is in a situation analogous to a gangbanger who posts pictures of his robbery victims to his Facebook page, then starts whining when he is arrested. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most racist thing I ever heard... Versability (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

? You were the one who started addressing other editors as "homie", not me, Brian. I find your assumption that gangbangers are people of color to be the actual racism. I also suspect that unlike me, you do not live in the inner city. Oh, well, you're blocked now, so the problem is ameliorated. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 15:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I was about to come off break and indef block this editor for a number of issues, ranging from Godwin's Law violations, a new found love for trolling and most importantly, WP:HERE. For what it is worth, consider this an endorsement of Orangemike's actions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Brian has just declared war on Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ROFL... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]