Hello, Claudebone, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as George W. Barlow, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JustBerry (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on George W. Barlow requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JustBerry (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ayrton Cable, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have now nominated Caleb Frank Gates for deletion and I thought you might want to contribute since you contested the Proposed deletion; you can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Frank Gates. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did you mean by your comments in removing the Proposed deletion and at the AfD? I must admit I am still confused as to why exactly you called my PROD of that page unhelpful. Was it because Gates does actually meet the criteria for inclusion? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and here's the proper method. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Uncle Milty. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayrton Cable that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:King of Hearts. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I promise to be perfectly civil to anyone who deserve respect. Claudebone (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I understand. I have not made any personal attacks recently. Claudebone (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does wrongly accusing me of a personal attack itself constitute a personal attack? Or are admins exempt by their godlike status? Claudebone (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implying that another editor is being or is incompetent is a personal attack, which is why I removed both from your comment on King of Heart's talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I am not sure of user:King of Heart's competence - he clearly fucked up closing the AFD debate, but I was trying to give him a chance of redeeming himself. If he takes the chance proffered to rectify his obvious mistake in spite of the off-topic trolling my estimation of him will be greatly increased. So why would I want to personally attack him? Claudebone (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks by Claudebone reported by Jim1138. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve nothing but contempt Jim1138. This could hav ebeen dealt with easily by redirecting the boy's article to his gradnfather but No. You had to escalate it. I won the AFD. It was wrongly judged. But then you had to escalate it until you won your pathetic little war. Well I hope you're glad you won. Meanwhile, we have failed this poor lad who doesn't deserve the attention. Claudebone (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors and because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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 ~~~~}}.  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Meanwhile, we still have an inappropriate biography of a 13 year old boy created by WP:COI WP:SPAs. Is NOBODY capable of listening to this? How do you propose to deal with this (and also the case of Jacob Barnett)? Claudebone (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim1138 should be the one blocked here, not me. Claudebone (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

user:Callanecc is not being entirely unreasonable, but he seems to have taken Jim1138's evidence at face value and not the Wikilawyering that it is. Are we seriously to consider that he has hurt feelings? Are we seriously to consider that pointing out unfortunate lack of WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED is a "personal attack"? Remarkable restraint has been shown.

Question for user:Callanecc - how do I deal with wrongly closed AFDs? Claudebone (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also question for user:Callanecc? Can you not see the real issue here is one of child protection? Claudebone (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A final question for user:Callanecc. Can you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aryton Cable? What's your take on the way this was handled? Claudebone (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My block is clearly unnecessary and was made in error, but I'm not going to grovel and plead to be unblocked. I want to discuss the issues with user:Callanecc first. The issues I want to discuss are child protection. I look forward to hearing from user:Callanecc about this policy. Claudebone (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions without evidence, such as much of the above, will be dismissed without being given much thought. Someone with about 80 edits over the past few months lecturing an admin with more than 500 times that number of edits over more than a decade, including numerous AfD closures, on the subtleties of AfD (without, of course, explaining those subtleties, especially in light of King of Hearts' explatnation for his rationale) seems rather unwise to me. If you think the closure was in error, the appropriate venue would have been WP:DRV.

Your conduct towards other editors throughout has been combative, but not based on evidence. In particular, you have not explained why this is an issue of child protection when the likes of the Evening Standard have reported on Cable. What exactly does Cable need protection from? Why is the biography inappropriate?

Also, I have to disagree with your assertion that "remarkable restraint" has been shown - certainly not by you. In fact, going through your rather short contribution list I find such edit summaries even before you were concerned about this article's fate - here it only gets worse. Something like this is so obviously inappropriate that, if you think that's you showing restraint, you do not have the capacity for civil discourse required to edit Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks user:Huon. My concern is only appropriate child protection policies, not keeping normal editors content. I would however like now to draw a line under this matter (my so-called alleged misbehaviour) and discuss the policy issues involved (which is what I've been trying to do). I have constantly tried to discuss these, and all I have an avalanche of malicious and irrelevant whining, whinging and moaning about "ooh personal attacks", combined with people stalking my edits to find any diff which they can take dramatic false offence to, and a WALL OF COMPLETE SILENCE ON THE POLICY ISSUES.

My plan was to take this to WP:DRV if the original closing admin had not had the good grace to admot and reverse his original mistake. I do not wish to publicly shame admins who make stupid decisions - they are after all only human and make bad mistakes sometimes. As I have been indisposed by unnecessary actions, if you would like to do that on my behalf, I would be most grateful for your assistance. The clear policy-based consensus was to delete, I'm sure any competent editor would agree. Your understanding of this is appreciated.

In particular, I would like to highlight how now we have WP:COI WP:SPAs can write an article on a 13 year old boy about whom they seem to have a rather unhealthy obsession. How is this acceptable? How is this protecting minors? How is this in line with notability policy? WP:BLP? It isn't, and let's face it you know full well it isn't. Which is why it needs to be deleted. Claudebone (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. When a minor is notable, we have an article on them. Now it's true that a lot of the sources on Ayrton Cable are poor, but there is quite enough there that WP:BLP is passed. This is a notable personage who has widespread coverage outside of Wikipedia - there is nothing to "protect" this "child" (teenager) from. You need to understand this if you are to take steps towards being unblocked. Furthermore is an understanding of WP:NPA - "go fuck yourself" and "[editor] is a retard" are wildly inappropriate behaviors, as is accusng other editors of having an "unhealthy obsession" which you just did again above. At this point what you need to do is drop the stick and step away from the horse carcass. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks The Bushranger. Let's ignore the irrelevant "personal attack" myths - I can hear them but I don't want to discuss them. Unfortunately the sources arne't good enough for a WP:BLP to meet WP:GNG and allow a WP:COI WP:SPA editors to contribute to an article on this child (yes, child). The WP:AFD spectacularly confirmed that. I'm sorry that you think I'm WP:STICKing it - fortunately for Wikipedia some of us have principles and are decent enough to see those through. Claudebone (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just so this does not come as a surprise: One more evidence-less accusation or insinuation against another editor, and I'll revoke talk page access. If you want to discuss policy, you should get unblocked first; see WP:Guide to appealing blocks. That will require you to acknowledge and discuss your own conduct, though. Huon (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We will not ignore the personal attacks, for they are a major part of this and as long as you "don't want to discuss them" you will not get unblocked. Fortunatly for Wikipedia some of us do understand policy - including "no personal attacks" and "Wikipedia is not censored" - and are willing to enforce it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, oh FFS User:The Bushranger! Please stop making false accusations against me and let's discuss the policy whereby an inappropriate biography of a 13 year old (child Aryton Cable) can be written by WP:COI WP:SPAs? You (and your friends) have repeatedly failed to even acknowledge the existence of this point. Once we've discussed that, I will consider secondary matters.

As a child protection issue I expect this to be dealt with appropriately forthwith. So please deal with it. That means dealing with the article and the content not editors frustrated by various things I'm not allowed to describe. Play the ball not the man. Claudebone (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "friends" in this issue, and I am not making false accusations. Personal attacks: [1], [2], continued casting of aspersions on other editors following the block: [3]. And your comment above indicates that you continue to refuse to listen when everyone is telling you Wikipedia is not censored "for the children!" or for any other reason, it is not an inappopriate biography, and this is not a child protection issue. The "issue" will be "dealt with" by retaining the article (and trimming out COI content in the normal editing procedure as with any other article) and by leaving you blocked; be advised that continued commentary as you have been going on about in every response in this conversation since you have been blocked will result in your talk page access being revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked for yet another instance of evidence-less insinuations against other editors despite explicit warnings. Repeating the same evidence-less accusation over and over again won't make it any more true. "Play the ball not the man" is good advice; if you had focused on explaining why the article's content is problematic, and not on various editors' supposed conduct and issues, we wouldn't be here. If you want to contest the block, WP:UTRS is available to you. Huon (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]