User talk:Spencer Humphrey

Welcome!

Hello, Spencer Humphrey, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

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 New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Rotunda News 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 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. Evaders99 (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Rotunda News 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 an organization or company, 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page The Rotunda News has been reverted.
Your edit here to The Rotunda News was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://twitter.com/TheRotundaNews) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spencer Humphrey, sorry to see that you've been having trouble. The main problem with your article is that there were no independent sources, just the organization's website. My suggestion is to find other sources that are talking about The Rotunda News. Check out WP:IRS for more on what makes a good source. Also, consider creating the page in a subpage of your user page, with a title like User:Spencer Humphrey/The Rotunda News. That way, you can work on the article and it's less likely to be deleted. Hope this helps! Howicus (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In order for the article about the website to remain, you need to establish why the website is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia by providing third-party, independent sources covering the website. Including references from the website itself does not establish the site's notability. Essentially, other news organizations needs to have covered the website. Please review the notability guidelines before attempting to create the article again. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Rotunda News, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, 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. (See section A7 of 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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, you can place a request here.  GILO   A&E⇑ 00:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I read the article and all of your objections to the deletion and I believe that my decision is correct. The issue is not the lack of describing what the website offers. You have done a good job of that. What the article lacks is establishing the notability of the website by showing that it has been covered by independent sources. If there are no independent sources, then the website is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. You can't use the website itself to establish notability.

As for the website being new, Wikipedia articles are generally for websites that are already established and have a certain amount of following. Articles are not intended to be advertisements to get the website established. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Rotunda News 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 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here.  GILO   A&E⇑ 00:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Gogo Dodo. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, 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. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop threatening me. I suspect that you are the author of the news website in question. Wikipedia is not here to promote your website. I know that it is brand new, you are excited about it, and trying to get the word out, but building a Wikipedia article is not the way to get the word out. I recommend that you cease with the personal attacks and instead go focus on building your website instead. I wish you the best and I hope that you become the next great news website, but until that time, the article will remain deleted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spencer Humphrey! 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! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Gogo Dodo. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And please read WP:WEB, which discusses the notability guidelines for web content. All subjects covered on Wikipedia are expected to be verifiably notable by reference to major third-party media outlets. Gogo Dodo has politely responded to your less-than-polite messages: please respect Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:your last (more amiable, thank you) comment to Gogo Dodo [1]: if the website's that obscure, it's not yet notable enough for Wikipedia, don't you think? Wikipedia documents pre-existing notability, it isn't a way to become notable. Acroterion (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• One more such attack (as on your now-deleted user page) and you will be blocked indefinitely. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Acroterion (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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.  --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear everyone, I have recently discovered that my account has been hacked. I would like to make it very clear to anyone who may have been affected by this that this is not the person who I am. To get my story straight, I posted the Rotunda News article once, but after it got deleted, i reaizedd that it would not meet wikipedia criteria. i got bacl on a few minutes to go, to find that my account had been blocked for insulting other users. Please realize that I did not say these things, and that is not the type of person I am. I have an idea as to who might have done this hacking, because i have checked the Rotunda News website traffic, and have found someone who looked on the contact page, who may have given The Rotunda contact info out to look more official. Please know that this is not me, and I am deeply saddened by any feelings that may have been hurt, or any defamation that may have happened. Please someone hear my cry for help. I've only been a wikipedia member for about a day, and am still trying to learn everything, but now i'm blocked. Will someone please help me get unblocked. You will recieve all the gratitude in the world if you do. PLEASE SOMEONE HEAR MY CRY. Thanks, and God Bless!Spencer Humphrey (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your account got hacked in the eight hours it was active, to post insults to the person who appropriately deleted the article about a website that was itself less than a day old? Sorry, not buying it. You were shown a great deal of patience by Gogo Dodo and others, including myself, and encountered at least five administrators along the way, who all told you the same thing. Acroterion (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Acroterion, I am sorry you feel that way, and if I were you I would probably think the same thing. I don't know what i need to do to let you know that I am telling the truth. By the way, my account had ben around for about 21 hours, not 8 hours. That may make a difference. Maybe it is a hacker that targets new wikipedia users, and they want this very thing to happen. Not to mention, i would not be that stupid to use my real name on an account that was used to insult people. Maybe i can file this as a case of character defamation? Furthermore, i have checked the visitor history on the Rotunda's website, and have found who i believe to be this hacker, since they visited a page just minutes before the article was updated on that page. I wish you would please reconsider, because I am telling the truth, and you can believe it or not, but its the truth. I am begging you to answer my cry for help! Thank You for understandingSpencer Humphrey (talk) 5:37 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Right. Maybe you should read: WP:GAB, specifically WP:EBUR as this applies directly to you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:45, 27 August 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

• • UPDATE**Jauerback- thank you for sending me that link. it seems as though it is saying there is nothing i can do, but i am not lying, and this isn't my fault, and this is making me rethink using wikipedia if this is how its users are treated. It's just frustrating that my account was suddenly blocked for things that happened on it when i was away from my computer, and no one seems to believe me. Do you think anyone will believe me, should i keep trying? or should i just give up now, and not use wikipedia anymore. please help me, sorry i sound frustrated!!Spencer Humphrey (talk) 6:23 am, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

In the event that your account was not hacked, your conduct is more than sufficient to warrant an indefinite block. In the event that your account genuinely was compromised, we will never unblock it; see WP:GOTHACKED for the reasoning behind this. Either way, whether you are telling the truth or not, this account will remain blocked. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:52, 28 August 2013 (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 was the target of your personal attacks, I will decline to act on your unblock request, but I do have some advice for you: You really need to drop the "I got hacked" excuse because it isn't believable. Your edit history, including your deleted edits, are available for all admins to see (yup, I read your user page and your "10 reasons..." "article") and the reviewing admins will look at those edits. The same editing pattern is made throughout your entire edit history: pushing the creation of an article about a non-notable website, the repeated protests regarding its deletion, and the escalating personal attacks. It is just not believable that a "hacker" came along hours later and made edits regarding the same obscure website with the same style of edits. So my advice is just drop the "I've been hacked" excuse, state that you will abide by all of Wikipedia's policies (specifically the notability policies and the no personal attacks policy), and come up with a better reason why you should be unblocked. And then maybe, just maybe, an admin will feel that you deserve a second chance. Threatening not to use Wikipedia anymore isn't a valid reason to be unblocked either because, to be honest, nobody will notice you are not using it. If you don't give up the "I've been hacked" excuse, I suspect that this will be your final unblock request. So would you like to reconsider your unblock request? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]