User talk:Sdtech74

Welcome!

Hello, Sdtech74, 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 Poul Thorsen, 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:

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! Asav | Talk 18:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Poul Thorsen

The article Poul Thorsen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This biography of a living person was deleted a few days ago and has now been recreated, albeit in a much shorter version. The reasons that led to deletion the last time are still valid, i.e. Mr. Thorsen was indicted in 2011 for an alleged felony or misdemeanor commited some ten or eleven years ago, and the case has led nowhere. The statement that he is on a Most Wanted Fugitive list is patently untrue. He is on a wanted list by by the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. As Mr. Thorsen is a Danish national, he will very probably not be extradicted by Danish authorities with no prejudice to culpability. Mr. Thorsen must in any case be considered innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law. Until, or if, that is the case, he is not sufficiently notable to warrant a biography on Wikipedia, and even if that were to happen, his importance would be tenuous at best.

For the record, I have no personal or other connection to or interest in the subject.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Asav | Talk 18:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Poul Thorsen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Poul Thorsen 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/Poul Thorsen 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. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

You have been blocked from editing indefinitely for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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 below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 14 October 2015 (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).

Sdtech74 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First time on Wikipedia. Read this and then followed it. "After reading the following Wikipedia text (after the delete posted message): "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it."

It is now clearly understood to not delete any text on page. The Wikipedia tutorial will be consulted for actions on Wikipedia in the future. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute here. Sdtech74 (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think you've missed the point - the deletion debate wasn't really the reason why you were blocked. Rather, you need to understand that writing a biography of a living person that is in any way negative can have serious repercussions for the project unless backed up with impeccable sources, and we always need to err on the side of caution. If you wish to raise another unblock request, it would help to list a few articles you would like to work on, and why. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:02, 15 October 2015 (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).

Sdtech74 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Does the US Dept. of Health and Human Services link and quotations thereof rise to the level of impeccable source when the following quote and source is added? An April 13, 2011 news release issued by the United States Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Georgia states “The indictment charges THORSEN with 13 counts of wire fraud and 9 counts of money laundering. The wire fraud counts each carry a maximum of 20 years in prison, and the money laundering counts each carry a maximum of 10 years in prison, with a fine of up to $250,000 for each count. In addition please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case” See http://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/gan/press/2011/04-13-11.html .Sdtech74 (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That you are trying to connect Roman Polanski to a non-notable person accused of financial misdeeds further demonstrates that you do not understand our WP:BIO and WP:BLP policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:20, 16 October 2015 (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.

No comparison has been proposed in terms of notability. However both are indicted. And both are awaiting extradition. And the proposal to provide an additional impeccable reference has yet to be resolved.Sdtech74 (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison not only misses the point, it is factually flawed. Per WP:BLPCRIME: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law." Polanski pleaded guilty and jumped bail before sentencing.[1][2]. Thorsen is only accused. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsen is accused of stealing money earmarked for research to help disabled children. He has avoided any communications with the U.S. authorities. If he is extradited or he voluntarily returns to the United States and turns himself over to authorities here, he will be presumed innocent during his trial. But he has not returned for trial. He obviously has avoided his warrant for arrest.

But this page does not say any of that. It merely provides basic information related to his indictment for 22 counts of Wire Fraud and Money Laundering. By the way Polanski fled before his sentencing and has been on Wikipedia for fourteen years.Sdtech74 (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia's purposes Thorsen is presumed innocent now and he will continue to be presumed innocent until a conviction is secured. The current article is a biography of one accusation. It cannot stand under Wikipedia's biographies of living people policy. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the page says "Thorsen allegedly diverted over $1 million of the CDC grant money to his own personal bank account. Thorsen is currently in Denmark and is awaiting extradition to the United States" there is no statement that he is not presumed innocent.Sdtech74 (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2015 (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).

Sdtech74 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Respectfully request unblock. The Wikipedia note requests additional links. It says "This article has no links to other Wikipedia articles. Please help improve this article by adding links that are relevant to the context within the existing text. (October 2015)."

This proposed added Wikipedia link addresses the term "fugitive." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive Sdtech74 (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't understand. You're blocked for violations of the Biographies of living persons policy, not for creating an imperfect article. Suggesting minor improvements to your article is not a path leading to an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2015 (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.

If I might offer the way I see it. You seem to be focusing on whether the article assumes or does not assume innocence, but I think that's missing the point. As it says at WP:BLPCRIME, "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." What that indicates is that if the accusation is the only apparent reason for notability (and in this case it is the only information contained in the article), then the article should not exist at all (as the overwhelming consensus at the deletion discussion supports). Until you understand and accept that, I can't see an admin unblocking you. EightTwoThreeFiveOneZeroSevenThreeOne (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC) (For the sake of disclosure, this was my cleanstart account before I abandoned it and returned to Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you EightTwoThreeFiveOneZeroSevenThreeOne for the Wikipedia reference at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLPCRIM Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). . After reading the requirement that “For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured”-- it is clear to this author that indeed there was serious consideration (by this author) of this before including the accusation of the crime. This accusation is of a heinous nature (alleged theft of over one million dollars earmarked for research for disabled children). The accused person has not responded to the media nor to the Department of Justice. Sdtech74 (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you personally gave it some consideration and decided to go ahead with the inclusion, but others clearly disagreed with you. What should happen then is a discussion to arrive at a consensus, and the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poul Thorsen was unanimously against you, deciding that the article was indeed a violation of WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME. If you want to make another unblock request, in my opinion you'd need to accept that, drop your argument now, and move on. EightTwoThreeFiveOneZeroSevenThreeOne (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2015 (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).

Sdtech74 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The consensus was that a violation occurred. However the declaration of serious consideration by this author establishes that the requirements were met regarding the requirement that "editors must seriously consider ..." (found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLPCRIM ). Sdtech74 (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not a court of law, and pedantically arguing that you followed the letter of what the policy says because you "seriously considered" doing it and decided against it is going to get you nowhere. You edited in ways which are inconsistent with Wikipedia's accepted practices on reporting allegations against living persons. Having had that pointed out to you, instead of saying "OK, thanks for explaining, as a new editor I didn't know, I will avoid making the same mistake again", you persist in sticking to what you did. Everything you have said shows clearly that you do not see any reason why you should not do the same sort of thing again, so unblocking you would not benefit the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2015 (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.

JamesBWatson,

Thank you for providing the decline reason as "edited in ways which are inconsistent with Wikipedia's accepted practices on reporting allegations against living persons."

It seems to this author that both the original edit and the subsequent responses established that every effort was made to clarify that Wikipedia's accepted practices of reporting allegations against living persons was followed. In retrospect it also seems clear that the requirements of Neutral point of view (NPOV), and Verifiability (V), and No original research (NOR) (Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons web page) were also met.

Please advise how one might edit consistent with these accepted practices so as to not make the same mistake next time. Sdtech74 (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2015 (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).

Sdtech74 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please look at Wikipedia Viera Scheibner Viera_Scheibner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viera_Scheibner . This is a hit piece. The Wikipedia Paul Thorsen page on the other hand demonstrates that every effort was made to clarify that Wikipedia's accepted practices of reporting allegations against living persons was followed. It also seems clear that the requirements of Neutral point of view (NPOV), and Verifiability (V), and No original research (NOR) (Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons web page) were also met. Sdtech74 (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Until you are able to recognize that under Wikipedia policy the article about Thorsen should not exist here at all, and agree not to attempt to re-insert it, I see no prospect of your being unblocked. Continuing to argue the point is really not going to help you.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:44, 25 November 2015 (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.

Anthony Bradbury, you wrote "Until you are able to recognize that under Wikipedia policy the article about Thorsen should not exist here at all, and agree not to attempt to re-insert it, I see no prospect of your being unblocked." The Wikipedia policy does not prohibit writing about living persons. The information on this living person is provided for the reader to understand what charges are made against this person by the United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General. This important information is being withheld from the Wikipedia website. Sdtech74 (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“In The Friends of Voltaire Hall wrote the phrase: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’” Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1906) Sdtech74 (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a free speech platform, it is an encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2015 (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).

Sdtech74 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please read the Poul Thorsen page removed. See below. Surely commonsense and all the Wikipedia rules have been followed in the Poul Thorsen page. Yet it is deleted. Please reinstate the page. Thank you. Request to reinstate the Poul Thorsen page as follows: <BLP Redacted>. Sdtech74 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Seeing as you are clearly not listening and are simply repeating the same BLP violations that got you blocked, I am removing your ability to edit this talk page. You may appeal at WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2015 (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.

Just to add a few more words of explanation. You keep insisting that your own interpretation of BLP policy is paramount and as long as you simply *considered* not writing the article, you're allowed to do whatever you like. But that's not how it works. When there is a dispute about how to implement a policy (eg WP:BLP), we have a discussion and the issue is decided by consensus. That is exactly what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poul Thorsen, where the consensus was unanimously in favour of deletion. You have been repeatedly refusing to abide by that consensus and keep insisting that the you should be allowed to personally override it and recreate the article - and that is why you are now not able to edit even this page. If you want to have any chance of an unblock via WP:UTRS, you will need to address that behavior - you are not going to be unblocked, via any route, if you simply keep insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]