M.A. Martin

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, Challengegroup, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing.

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. 

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} on your user talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf^(talk) 17:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Challengegroup (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

M.A. Martin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

Challengegroup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

Hello. You need to select a new user name. One that meets the relevant policy. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to choose a new username. PhilKnight (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

M.A. Martin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

yChallengegroup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

That username is inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to change usernmae but I'm not allowed to ! Thanks ! Challengegroup (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

M.A. Martin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

challengegroup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

You'll have to propose a new username that's actually different from your current one and that agrees with the username policy. Proposing your current username as the new username won't work. Huon (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

M.A. Martin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

user name changed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accept reason:

Indeed. As your username was the only reason for your block, I have lifted your block. Yamla (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eva Bartlett (January 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Eva Bartlett and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Eva Bartlett, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello! M.A. Martin, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Vanessa Beeley. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have "unreferenced" articles. And I don't do anything defamatory, otherwise this means Reporter Without Borders, The Guardian, Orient News, L'obs, Le Temps, The Syria Campaign, The Lancet... do too.

These are a few of the sources : The Guardian Olivia Solon & George Monbiot The Syria Campaign Vanessa Beeley's own statements Reporter without borders Orient News L'obs Le Temps Snopes PulseMedia... etc.

Aren't sources ? And why threaten me of being blocked ? Or is this a way to censor ?M.A. Martin (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Talkpages

Please take a look at WP:INDENT. If you indent your comments in a talkpage discussion, it´s eastier to follow and clearer who is talking to who.

That said, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it and stick around, it´s a very special place. "The reality about this person" is not necessarily what is wanted on WP, other editors may not agree with you on what "the reality" is. What a WP article ideally should be, is a summary of what has been written about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (selfpublished sources can be used a little). WP:s policy of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH prevents us as editors to draw our own conclusions in article space, and that can be annoyingly hard sometimes.

Good luck, and here´s an interesting article: Is the Sky Blue? How Wikipedia Is Fighting for Facts by Redefining the Truth. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi talk

Thank you very much for welcoming me.

But I think it won't be possible for me to edit and improve my article, as someone has just delited it completely, with false argument and threatened to block me :

January 2018 Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Vanessa Beeley. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This is strange because I was currently trying to add sources to my article, and I already had those ones : The Guardian, Olivia Solon & George Monbiot The Syria Campaign Vanessa Beeley's own statements Reporter without borders Orient News L'obs Le Temps Snopes PulseMedia... etc. SO I fear I won't be able to take your advice in account to better my work.M.A. Martin (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And while I wrote the above, Vanessa Beeley was deleted. It happens. If you try again, focus on the independent secondary reliable sources. I think the subject may meet Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you for you reply "it happens" : does this mean it is the normanl way : to delete articles before even it is notified or has a talk page linked to that article ? Or os their an other way to do ask for imporvement, make a discussion, and eventually delete if the author does not improve the article ? I'd like to know if an administrator without a conflict interest could help me, please (I don't know how to contact them). Thank you. M.A. Martin (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Like many things on WP, context matters. Your article was deleted by an admin (you can see this if you click Vanessa Beeley) per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, one of WP:s many policies and guidelines. If the admin felt the article was more borderline, they could have started a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion instead. That the admin deleted your article does not mean that they have a conflict of interest as WP use the term, WP:COI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again for your answer. What I just mean, is that my article was not an "attack page", you've read it, you've maybe didn't have the time to read everything, but even if I ha to add a few sources or modify or erase a few elements, you know it was sourced with reliable sources for large parts of it ! I didn't stated that the admin had conflicts of interests, I just said I'd like to have several advice, with at least an other adminsitrator of Wikipedia. Because The Guardian and Reporters Without Borders are not sources who are used to do defamatory statements, nor the other several main media sources I was adding. Besides, you ay understand that while talking about propaganda linked to Russian media and war, networks are powerful enough, and that I just ask for other readers for Wikipedia administrators, because the subject matters and is essential, not to keep hidding wrime against humanity (and I can understand Wikipedia can be afraid of such controversail subjects, but avoiding them by deleting instead of improving the article with only reliable information sources does not seem acceptable to me. I hope you'll accept to tell me how to contact other administrators or report the edit conflict, because the one who deleted my article did not answer so far. M.A. Martin (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Vanessa Beeley

Hello, M.A. Martin. I am an administrator and have the ability to read deleted articles. Your article was an attack page which was entirely negative about Beeley. Speedy deletion was proper and correct. Start by reading our core content policy, the neutral point of view. Please also read our policy on Biographies of living people. Compliance with these policies is mandatory. Wikipedia does not take sides in the Syrian Civil War, although obviously individual editors have strong opinions. It may be possible to write an acceptable article about Beeley, but it must be rigorously neutral, and your article was an obvious effort to make her look bad. That is simply not allowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer. Thank you for having read. Yes, I've read that, and it says "When material is spunout of a biography of a public figure by consensus because that section of the article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is not necessarily an attack page, even if the content in question reflects negatively upon its subject."

So I'll just have to say I desagree, because the vocabulary was neutral (we didn't wrote "she claims" but "she asserts", etc. compared to newspapers articles), because if there were negative things, it's because we're dealing with a person who fights against a "no-fly zone" in Syria to protect civilians, who denies crimes against Humanity, and acknowledges in private that she'll never tell about torture... People who share such point of views have usually quite negative articles in Encyclopedies, not becasue they are being under attack. The Guardian did not receive any complaint for this article : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories because there is only truth in it, but the journalist who wrote it is threatened and harassed since it was published. So I published the link to her linkedin with her aprobation. And this is only an example. I didn't write "Queen od desinformation", I didn't quote her twitt that is condemnedable for incitement of crimes against humanity which says "White Helmet are legitimate taerget", because my aim is not that people attack her (as she did to several of us, and as her bodyguards also did), this is not revenge, this is information, factual information so that people know who they are reading, who they are hearing on TV, and she is not an independent journalist. If you really look for encyclopedic and factual information, you can look for information in the sources I gave or elsewhere, and I wanted to add more... and only delete what was not good for English Wikipedia policy. M.A. Martin (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Any attempt to write another draft must be a fresh start, and the community of editors interested in this topic must agree that the draft is neutral and meets our policies and guidelines. So take the criticisms of other editors to heart, because any new version will be subjected to intense scrutiny. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ Thank you for your reply and advice. I always take criticism at heart as long as people who criticized have read the sources they deny me, because critics are useful to improve. The problem is, that it was not the case and when I gave an explanation, the answer was "Ok so this was not the problem". Thanks. I don't think I'll try again, because I was told by the Administrator who deleted me that I'd be blocked if I continue. Which is generally the main problem with propaganda issues. M.A. Martin (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You were told that you would be blocked if you continued trying to write an attack page. If you cannot see that your previous effort was an attack page (which it was), then you will have difficulty, I suppose, avoiding the same mistake. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Cullen³²⁸ I was told that : " Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Vanessa Beeley. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia." Yes, I have difficulty to see the attack, because I tried to be factual, I added many sources to explain each fact, each paragraph or sentence, some quotations, links to her own articles and words so unreferenced or poorly referenced, I don't get exactly. Which are not reliable sources : Snopes ? The Syria Campaign ? Her own blog ? The articles she published on 21st century wire ? Orient news ? Belling cat ? Reporters without borders ? Medium ? Channel 4 fact check ? The Lancet ? I really don't know, because I'm not an English speaker. I think I have to remove the links to linkedin and twitter (eventhough it's about well-known journalists who agreed ?) As for the rest, I linked to her own blog because I was asking to link to a source to justiy factual things like her father. I changed negative and derogatory vocabulary I found in articles to be more neutral. I didn't give my point of vie or my own judgment. I'd also would have liked to have more elements before "controverse", but there is very few information on her, even less reliable information. Could you help me, because I've read the policies, and I didn't see much difference from French Wikipedia, in my mother tongue, which did not judge my page as an attack. And I had a look on English Wikipedia too, for instance, someone who share ideas and contacts with Vanessa Beeley, is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Gollnisch , and his page is not viewed as an attack page, while there are lots of controversies on it. The main differences are that Beeley is a secret activist and propagandist, so we lack information about her life, compared to a public politician, and also the theories of conspiracy that deny all sources usually known as reliable. So I'm lost here. And I'd need help to be able to write on such a controversial subject here. M.A. Martin (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

If we lack information about her in reliable sources, we can't write it. "Theories of conspiracy" do not matter. We use material only from reliable sources, especially for articles about living people. We can use self-published sources to a very limited degree, only for very plain and totally uncontroversial facts. (If someone stated the city they were born in, etc.). We cannot interpret them in any way whatsoever, and we cannot take into account conspiracy theories. "Medium", blogs, etc., are not reliable references. They are not fact-checked or editorially controlled at all. If we wrote an article about her, we would stick only to facts published in reliable sources. Period. Though from what I can see, those sources tend only to name drop her, not actually cover her in depth, so there's a very good possibility she's not notable enough for an article to begin with. No number of name drops in reliable sources add up to notability, in depth coverage is required. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Seraphimblade Have you read the message I left you of The Tea House page ? There are 12 mentions of Vanessa Beeley in this article, with full paragraphs on her. Is it "drop name" ? Have you read it ? Is it enough for notability ? It's here : https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories The report from the Syria Campaign is already a report that checked facts and has a chapter on Beeley. https://diary.thesyriacampaign.org/killing-the-truth/ Yes, I pointed at her blog where she says the name of her father, which is not controversial, or to quote her, only. And if I link to a source that can be controversial, as RT, only to point the number of articles/interviews she made for RT, I guess this also is not controversial ? I've seen that you have access to all my sources, I have a few more I didn't have time to add before you deleted my article. So maybe you could tell me plese if I have enough sources or not. Thanks.M.A. Martin (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not reading all of them. Show me your best ones. If the Guardian is the best one, no, that's not enough. It's just a brief mention. As for "The Syria Campaign" one, that's from what looks to be a rather partisan source. Those are not generally reliable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Seraphimblade Thank you for your answer. I'm not sure wether you still question her notability or not. As for the sources, now that you've clearly said you haven't read sources linked to my article, I'm less surprised that you deleted it so quickly and didn't try to help me editing it to fit English Wikipedia standards. Thank you for telling.

Killing the truth is an NGO, not partisan in the Syrian conflict, only in favor of defending human rights and denouncing all violations, who ever commits the violation. Their investigation work is not less reliable as Amnesty deep investigation are, and this report is a large investigation work, acknowledged by several main media as Spiegel, that's why I'd thought about it as a source.

As for your assertion : "It's just a brief mention." (her name comes 12 times (in addition to pronouns refering to Beeley)), it refers to : - "Some of the most vocal sceptics of the UN’s investigation include the blogger Vanessa Beeley, the daughter of a former British diplomat who visited Syria for the first time in July 2016" - "(...)both Graphika and Menczer’s Hoaxy tool identify Beeley, the British blogger, as among the most influential disseminators of content about the White Helmets." - "(...)Kate Starbird from the University of Washington in Seattle, who asserts that Beeley and the alternative news site 21st Century Wire have dominated the Twitter conversation about White Helmets over the last few months" - "Beeley frequently criticises the White Helmets in her role as editor of the website 21st Century Wire (set up by Patrick Henningsen, who is also a former editor at Infowars.com.)" - "In 2016, Beeley had a two-hour meeting with Assad in Damascus as part of a US Peace Council delegation, which she described on Facebook as her “proudest moment”. She was also invited to Moscow to report on the “dirty war in Syria”; there, she met senior Russian officials including the deputy foreign minister, Mikhail Bogdanov, and Maria Zakharova, director of information and press at Russia’s foreign ministry." - "(...)cited Beeley as an independent researcher asserting that the video fuelled suspicion around the “already questionable credibility” of the organisation. The following day Beeley wrote a story on 21st Century Wire in which she argued that the video caused “widespread doubt, even among diehard supporters, as to the veracity of their much edited slick video reports”." - "Meanwhile, Beeley’s influence continues. In April 2017, she gave a talk at a conference alongside ministers in Assad’s cabinet(...) titled “White Helmets: Fact or Fantasy?” Her briefing paper and slides on the topic were then submitted to the UN security council and UN general assembly by the Russian government as “evidence” against the White Helmets." - “These leaked documents offer cast-iron proof that the Russian government is doing what it can to elevate Vanessa Beeley as a key player in its propaganda campaign,” - “A blogger for a 9/11 truther website who only visited Syria for the first time last year should not be taken seriously as an impartial expert on the conflict.” - "The Guardian contacted Beeley several times asking for comment and she declined to respond to specific queries, saying that the questions put to her were “a disgrace” containing “no relevant facts and are reminiscent of a McCarthyite interrogation”." - "Shortly after the requests for comment, Beeley appeared on a 40-minute-long YouTube programme in which she discussed the emailed requests for comment and criticised the Guardian’s coverage of Syria, alleging “faux reporting” based on footage provided by “al-Qaida affiliates” the White Helmets. Beeley said that the “majority consensus” was that the White Helmets were a fraudulent terrorist organisation."

So here, I would almost dare to tell you that biased point of view on facts can be true for everyone, dear Seraphimblade, even administrators, as for my part, I'd say that Beeley is not "just a brief mention" or "name drop", but is important, almost at the heart of the article. However, I think that you are not likely to accept the article - first because it was "unsourced or poorly sourced" while BBC, Channel 4, Fact Check, Snopes, Reporter without borders, The Lancet, Al Araby are among my secondary sources, in addition to the Guardian - then because it was an attack page, but if I refered to Wikipedia policy, it says "Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject" - then because I was presumably "interpreting", which finally was resolved - then her notability was questionned, while she was quoted at the UN - and now, there is this strange lack of reliable source, due to a "brief mention"... So, I won't carry on, because it's useless, I fear that any other reason will emerge each time I solve a problem or prove my good faith, which I thought would be first assumed here. I would like to have an answer from you at least regarding the Guardian article. 03:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Who may I refer too if I disagree with you and have no answer ?M.A. Martin (talk)

FWIW, the Guardian article is not a passing mention, it definitely "counts" towards WP:GNG, but of course it´s not enough by itself. Britisk journalist svarer Khader igen: »Jeg er hverken støttet af Assad eller Putin« (Jyllandsposten) also adds to the argument for an article on this person. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer and your help ! The source you sent me could be used on English Wikipedia, even if it's not in English ? If so, this would be great, because this means my draft awaiting for review (on Eva Bartlett), with sources in French, may have more chances to be accepted (because it seems Channel 4 Fact Check, Snopes, Al Araby or Orient News may not be reliable sources). Gråbergs Gråa Sång

As long as they are reliable sources, yes, see WP:NOENG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Stuff like this is of course unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Ideas and perspectives you won’t find anywhere else." may be interesting to read, but it is pretty much the opposite of what is wanted on WP, yes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ani

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. John from Idegon (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (Help!) 17:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed your edits to Wikipedia. These comprise creating two badly-sourced articles on living people engaged in a real-world dispute. One of these is substantially promotional, the other constituted an attack page. It's pretty clear you're not here to benefit Wikipedia, but instead to pursue an off-Wikipedia agenda. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eva Bartlett (March 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dial911 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Eva Bartlett and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Eva Bartlett, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dial911 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Unblock me ?

The reason why I was blocked a few months ago was "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" because I was told I had written an "attack page" (article about Vanessa Beeley with controversies (sourced but it seemed not enough), translated from the French article about her (she is an Assad propagandist who now has a much more negative article about her !) and also a "substantially promotional page" on Eva Bartlett (her colleague, an other Assad propagandist... who now also have her own page on Wikipedia), (this last assertion was obviously a mistake (I can't understand why I would attack one and promote the other) but I can't tell as the draft was just erased 2 days ago).

A few months ago, it seemed impossible to write articles about Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett (I don't speak about the first version of my draft and article that needed corrections to fit properly with English Wikipedia standards, I speak about improved and collective fair articles...). I'm glad it has now be done by other contributors as @FromNewsToEncyclopedia:, @Philip Cross:, @Philip Cross:, @Bobfrombrockley:... thanks !

Now that it has been possible for other editors to write articles on these controversial people, I hope I will be unblocked because I am here to contribute to the Encyclopedia, and I am sad when I read the pre-last contributions made on Eva Bartlett's article by Torod15 and I couldn't answer him/her on discussion page... I have also sources in French that could maybe be usefull for the current discussion about Syrian White Helmets...

I would have needed advice and help to improve my conributions because they were probably awkward and far from perfect, but I don't think I deserved being blocked because the reason was "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" while I was here for that only reason... and while it is exactly what I do regularly on French Wikipedia (even if propaganda is not the easiest issue to deal with, I had no problems there)... Wikipedia https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/M.A._Martin :) )

What do you think about unblocking me ? I'll try to notify only those who interacted with me or gave advice... @Alexf:, @Yamla:, @PhilKnight:, @Dlohcierekim:, @Huon:, @Robert McClenon:, @Seraphimblade:, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, @Cullen328:

PS : even if I'm still blocked, I'd like to tell @Philip Cross: I am sorry he's being harassed on radio, youtube and by phone... harassed because of the edition of pages about these propagandists... I don't know what it's possible to do when someone as famous as G.G. attacks someone in real life because of his contributions on Wikipedia, on propaganda issues...

Thank you ! M.A. Martin (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to Guy, since he placed the block. If you want it reviewed otherwise, put a proper unblock request on this page (which I know you know how to do, given that you did exactly that for your username block), and wait for it to be reviewed. "Ping a bunch of people" is not how one requests an unblock. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I'm not sure it was Guy who placed the block. I didn't know it was still available for me to request unblock (and I needed many attempts (although it was directly explained on my page...), and it was already quite a long time ago, to make one for username, but I'll find how to do that.M.A. Martin (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I was pinged and will comment briefly. My only interaction with this editor was that I reviewed a draft, Draft:Eva Bartlett, and declined it as not establishing notability. I said that notability for a blogger should be based on what reliable sources have said about the blog ad the blogger. I cannot refer to the draft at this time because it was speedily deleted as an attack page. I see that one other draft by this editor was also deleted as an attack page. My question is not whether the editor wants to contribute to Wikipedia, but whether they understand that they need to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. They haven't addressed whether they have learned anything about the rule against attack pages. I won't comment further. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes. Not here for the encyclopedia requires explanation, and it means not here to take part constructively in a large electronic collaborative project. This editor hasn't said how they plan to contribute. They probably should specify, or their block request will definitely be declined. Now I really won't comment further unless pinged again. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

(EDIT : Robert McClenon won't answer the questions I have, so no problem, I won't notify him again but I still have these questions in my mind and think they may be legitimate, So I restore them below after they have been erased. My contributions being on controversial subjects (I wanted to create 2 articles which are now online and which are main reasons why @Philip Cross: is being harassed, subjects which are also very controversial on french Wikipedia (V. Beeley, E. Bartlett, Pierre Le Corf, White helmets, Douma Chemical Attack, etc. are pages which regularly need protections or "undo" because of the propaganda about them. My questions are not here to annoy Robert McClenon or anyone else. They are here because I understand why my pages weren't acceptable as they were, because I had no experience at all on Wikipedia at the time I wanted to create them, but I am also convinced there are people who, instead of helping me bettering what was a draft prefered to write I was writing a promotional / attack page (these 2 have been used for the same draft exactly by 2 different administrators while I didn't change anything in the draft, obviously, because I was blocked !), so I know there are controversial enough subject not to accept my questions being collapsed/erased but I want them to remain readable for administrators who will examine my unblock request.M.A. Martin (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC) )

Robert McClenon Thanks for your reply. Sorry to notify you again, but I have 5 questions now

1. I've written (just above) that my drafts and articles weren't sourced enough, were probably awkward and far from perfect, and also written I would have needed advice and help to improve them... (They were my 2 first articles ever.) So why tell that I didn't address if I have learn anything ?

2. I can't understand this part of your comment : draft on [[Draft:Eva Bartlett] remained in the draft several months, then when I wrote again on this page a few days ago, User:GzD put it as an attack page and speedily deleted just after : (Deletion log); 23:12 . . JzG (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft talk:Eva Bartlett ‎(G8: Talk page of deleted page "Draft:Eva Bartlett" (TW)). DO you know why (speedy deleting in a minute while in drafts since months ?)

3. You told that notability for Eva Bartlett wasn't established. But now this article is online, about her (and it was written with a large majority of the sources I already had put in my draft). So who decides if notability is established (she is mentionned in over 20 reliable sources, and is the main subject of several of them) ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Bartlett

4. Then you wrote that the article on Eva Bartlett was an attack page. But Guy refused it because it was "substantially promotional", and then I was advised to "make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject". So how should I understand these 2 opposite assertions ? It doesn't make sense for me.

5. I have written 2 examples of what I plan to contribute on Wikipedia, and explained I'd like to be able to contribute in the same way I contribute daily on French Wikipedia (where I had no problem and was never blocked). I also allow myself to remind you that the articles I wanted to create a few months ago and which were deleted both now exist and are online, so I won't create new articles on Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett, they are perfect as they are, and well sourced. What should I explain more precisely ? I usually only contribute when I have new reliable sources that add interesting encyclopedic information...M.A. Martin (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)M.A. Martin (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

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).

M.A. Martin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm here to contribute to Wikipedia, not to write attack pages, I've created several articles on French Wikipedia, all seriously sourced and accepted, now that I know much better how it works, I would like to be unblocked on English Wikipedia to help collaborate to it, please. Adding that the articles I wanted to create now exist, and they are on 2 war propagandists, so a very controversial subject. Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett (their first version were seen as attack page / promotionnal page (?). If I can understand the first was judged as an Attack page because ill-sourced or not properly written, I would have needed that attack parts were erased and help to improve the rest (I assumed it would be ok because I had written them on French Wikipedia and this was a translation, I first did not understand the standards were so different. As for the "promotionnal" draft on Eva Bartlett, I am really sorry but I still can't understand how it could have been so, and this is why, after several other reasons (I was also said they were not notable enough to have an article on them for instance), I feared there could be a will also to censor the subject (Philip Corss, who edited these articles, was threatened !). Now that the articles exist, I don't fear this anymore. M.A. Martin (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

(1) You are blocked because you are seen as not being here to contribute to building the encyclopaedia. Having extensively studied your editing history, I have to agree: you are here to use Wikipedia to promote your point of view on certain issues. (2) You appear to be genuinely unable to see the nature of what you are doing, or to understand the concerns which other editors have expressed. For example, in comparing the new articles with your own deleted writings on the same subjects, you seem to be unable to see the difference between on the one hand reporting that there are controversies, and on the other hand asserting a point of view in relation to those controversies. An editor who is aware of what is seen as problematic with his or her editing may be able to change, but one who cannot see the problems is unlikely to be able to do so. (Incidentally, the "several articles on French Wikipedia" that you say you have created turn out to be two articles. Evidently you misremembered.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2018 (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.

@JamesBWatson: I disagree with what you wrote about me, there are things which are not true.

At first (several months ago), I first did not understand why my article on Vanessa Beeley was considered as an attack page, I've argumented the subject was dfficult, prejudiced & negative, that I also had bad-faith answers, but mainly, I've aksed questions to understand and try to better the article (I did not have time to do so because it was deleted).

But now I've understood what was wrong, and I've written several times here on my page already that my article was ill-sourced / not sourced-enough, and that the writting was not the proper way, and awkward, etc.

But, sure, I also wrote something else, which is true : that there was nothing wrong (false) in the article, only truth, and I did not intend to attack her voluntarily.

I was just a Wikipedia editor beginner, unable to source properly and write in the best Encyclopedia neutral vocabulary & tone (mainly in English), now I've understood a lot since months (and around 450 contibutions on French Wikipedia, even if the standards are differents, ther are many similarities).

I never wrote that I did not aknowledge the difference with the new articles on Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett that are online now (the only things I wrote are :

- I am glad that these articles now exist and I that I would like to thank editors such as @FromNewsToEncyclopedia:, @Philip Cross:, @Philip Cross:, @Bobfrombrockley:, @NewEnglandYankee:, @Shellwood:... because the articles now exist and are now good, true, balanced, sourced, etc.

-most of the sources they contained when they were created were also in my first version (which is not the case anymore because recent articles have been published about Vanessa Beeley, such as Conspiracy Watch, Huffington Post, etc.).

Why change my writings to transform their meaning into things I did not wrote ?

Incindently, I've created more than 2 articles on French Wikipedia (3 or 4, depending on how you count) and contributed to many more... (but what is the problem with that anyway ?)...

Please, would it be possible to apply the good principles of Wikipedia with me ? Supposing good faith, collaborate to help each-other improving the Encyclopedia, and not interpreting/modifying my writings to transform them into what I did not write ? Judge that I am here to defend "my point of view" only about 2 deleted articles seems to me rather quick. I've written that I learnt and now want to contribute in the proper way. What is the problem with allowing me to give it a try ?

Sure, I defend my point of view on Discussion Page when I disagree with something wrong :

- when I am answered that the notability of the subject is not enough (the fact that now the article exist kind of prove me right ?)

- when I am answered I wrote a promotionnal page...

- when I am answered things which are wrong (no I never wrote I could see the difference nor acknowledge the concerns... I've on the contrary asked for help to improve my editing).

But on the Encyclopedia, I am only here to write what is found in reliable secondary sources (and yes, it's mainly on a controversial subject as war propaganda about Syria, the subject why @Philip Cross: was harassed by propagandists, reason why my first username was about Challenging Propaganda), I am not here to defend my point of view, but only facts, verified and published in reliable sources. Thank you.

PS : as an administrator, you can read what is deleted, could you please read my draft about Eva Bartlett and explain me why Guy wrote it was a promotionnal page, because this is the only point I still can't understand. Thank you very much.M.A. Martin (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

M.A. Martin (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and cannot consider your unblock request. It isn't useful for you to interrogate me or to use questions to me in order to wikilawyer your unblock request. I said that I was finished discussing. Discuss with an administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

To be precise, Robert McClenon wrote "Now I really won't comment further unless pinged again" (after a unique reply), so I wrote "Sorry to notify you again but I now have questions" because what he wrote did not seem right/true and questionned me. I understood that he wasn't particularly happy to have to answer again, but that he would do if asked, but I did not understand hs reply "I said that I was finished discussing." I am told to be precise and factual, to pay attention to words when I edit Wikipedia, and I try to because it's important. So I'd like other editors who have things to blame on me te remain also factual and not erase my questions or change what they wrote. Otherwise, it can't help administrators to have a neutral idea of the unblock request being legitimate or not. I don't understand what would be "Wikilawyeing" in this. M.A. Martin (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

As I was asked what would be my intentions but it seems it wasn't enough, here is an other thing I'd like to contribute to is : in this section on controversies : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup#Controversies, I'd like to add other reasons for controversies /call for boycott is the support for Syria's regime and involvment in the war (example of sources : http://www.france24.com/en/20180315-syria-groups-call-russia-world-cup-boycott-threat, http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/sport/b279358f-137e-404a-b599-5a4f93e44616) and the issue of human rights in Russia http://www.rfi.fr/europe/20180610-quatre-jours-mondial-mobilisation-droits-homme-russie-oleg-sentsov, but also well-known primary sources if accepted as https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/06/russia-the-bravest-world-cup-team-youve-never-heard-of/ after asking on Talk page if it is acceptable or not to source with HRW and Amnesty or not (otherwise there are secondary sources available too.) M.A. Martin (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.M.A. Martin (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I recommend that admins decline this unblock request, after I did a review of the editor's work on the French Wikipedia.

• French Wikipedia contributions
• French Wikipedia talk page

When considering unblock for a person who has caused trouble in the past, it is fair to consider whether they are likely to be a net benefit if unblocked. We should do this whether or not the person states they have good intentions. M.A. Martin has referred to his work on the French Wikipedia in his comments above. The English article which M.A. Martin created in late 2017 on the journalist Vanessa Beeley was deleted by User:Seraphimblade on 6 January 2018 as a G10 attack page. That page was later recreated by others without the original problems. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Happy to know you reviewed the hundreds of contributions I made on French Wikipedia, and what do you tink of them ?

Yes, the article now exists on Vanessa Beeley (you wrote the journalist, while Wikipedia states her as a blogger, but we are speaking about the same person). And the article contains roughly the same elements and a majority of sources I first wrote (sources and parts have been added since, because new important articles have been published on Vanessa Beeley recently).

My intention was not to attack her but to write about what she does, who she is, because she is quoted in numerous media and propaganda outlets and has big influence on human rights issues in Syria. My language was probably too awkward partly because English is not my mother tongue and the subject not easy. The article contained much more "controversies" than usual articles (as it is still the case), but as it was my first article on Wikipedia, it was not well-sourced enough and also, it was apparently not in the proper neutral vocabulary of an encyclopedic article (I write apparently because on this I don't exactly know what was wrong, not easy to get because I didn't get the help I received on French Wikipedia, to erase what was not acceptable nor to improve what was to put in better words, all was deleted. I had some advice, but mostly genral. Nothing in the article I wrote was false and facts are still the same in the new article (which contains even more controversies than the original, but better sourced and better said).

If you are interested, I can copy/paste here my initial draft as I think I still have it in my computer (and the French translation on it was allowed on French Wikipedia, never seen as an attack page nor reported, only edited, improved, you can check all the history https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vanessa_Beeley&offset=&limit=500&action=history).

I am in good faith. Not all are, on this propaganda issues, but I thought we should always first assume good faith. I never "cause trouble" intentionnally, I didn't reapeat wrong behaviours. And I also I still think that, on such a controversial subject, I had some answers which were with inomprehension or bad faith (because of successive contradictory statements).

So, what is the "risk" of unblocking me ? At least letting me try ? I guess you can watch carrefully my future contributions easily. You really consider people as "a net benefit" ? I thought it was a collaborative free encyclopedia among people believing in the universal utility of the project, not about "benefits". Or maybe I misunderstood what you meant by this sentence.

What do you think about what I wrote just above, with examples of what I intend to edit when unblock ?

And I was always transparent and honnest, and I am still, I waited patiently several months and I am now asking to be unblocked.

M.A. Martin (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Asking for unblock

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).

M.A. Martin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My first attempt to create a page on Vanessa Beeley was considered an attack page on English Wikipedia (a translation of that same article was accepted on French Wikipedia but the standards are different, now I know that, and because on French Wikipedia, I was advised and heped to improve, cut, modify, correct, etc. the article). This was because it was not enough sourced, ill-sourced (primary sources from herself mainly) and not neutral enough in the vocabulary chosen. It was my first article on Wikipedia, and it was not well written, akward (English is not my mother tongue), with not only secondary sources. I did not intend to write an attack page voluntarily, of course, it was a very difficult subject (war propaganda and conspiracy, very controversial), too difficult for the beginner I was. Now I've learnt a lot (I'm blocked since several months), I'm a regular contributor on French Wikipedia (over 500 contribs), with no problems, never blocked nor reported to administrators or anything. I ask for the second time to be unblocked because so far the editors / administrators who answered me did not answer my questions (and maybe some appear to not have understood what I intended to wrote). I'm now asking the advice of opinion of editors who have now created and edited the articles I wanted to do, because as they know the subject, I think they may help judge my intentions, understand what I am talking about and give me advice. More over, I say it for the second time, on this subject, there is a high level of controversy, and I received bad-faith-funded replies (about the notability of Vanessa Beeley, and when I was said my draft of the article on Eva Bartlett was promotional...) @FromNewsToEncyclopedia: @Philip Cross: @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: @Bobfrombrockley: @SamHolt6: @Eagleash: @NewEnglandYankee: Thank you.M.A. Martin (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request.Yamla (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2018 (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.

I'd be willing to unblock if you will accept a topic ban from all articles and edits related to the Syrian civil war and ISIL. You could then request a lifting of this ban in six months, which would be granted if you'd edited productively in other areas in that time. Note that this would preclude you from some of your planned editing that you described above (eg 2018 world cup controversies related to Russian support for the Syrian government). If you indicate that you will accept this condition, I will unblock you. GoldenRing (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer, @GoldenRing:. I thank you also for the offer to unblock me, but may I ask you why only a partial unblock, please ?

The Syria Civil War is the subject I have more knowledge about (so what I have best to offer to Wikipedia), as I work on this daily, and also what made me willing to join Wikipedia, because I felt I had dozens of useful information which didn't appear on Wikipedia, which could be interesting for people in search of information on Human right abuses which weren't easily to find on the internet because of disinformation (I don't work particularly on ISIL, but rather other subjects linked to Syrian Civil war, particularly Human rights, Human rights abuses, refugees, and war propaganda by the different parties involved in the conflict, all this mainly about the situation of civilians). Since my first attemp to create articles about Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett, these articles have now been created again. They are interesting, relevant and informative. Wikipedia was improved thanks to those who followed my first ideas and started with translating my own articles from French Wikipedia (and then improved them, of course), mainly @FromNewsToEncyclopedia: @Philip Cross: @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: {{reply to|Bobfrombrockley}.

I did make a mistake with was here an attack page (not voluntary but the result of my awkardness and lack of experience and help) because I didn't understand properly the rules of English Wikipedia and mainly didn't source properly enough (which was particularly crucial on this very controversial subject). Since that, I already had (almost) 6 months of blocking afterwards. (I don't speak about my draft on Eva Bartlett considered "rather promotional" because I still don't understand and never had an answer on this). Don't you think 6 months was enough for me to learn ?

I think 6 more months don't seem useful for me. The best proof I can give you is that I was never banned nor reproached my articles and edits on the Syrian Civil War by administrators on French Wikipedia (I was thanked many times, I was also pinned on several occasions to give an advice or my opinion, I helped other contributors to learn, I was helped...), and I'd say over 95% of my 540 contributions are related to the Syrian Civil war. I'd like to be able to edit English Wikipedia again on all subjects, and especially the one I best master, please trust my good faith. I won't make the same mistakes again, will only add secondary sourced information and help improve Wikipedia.

Thank you anyway for your reply, and if this is the only solution to be able to edit on English Wikipedia, of course, I will accept the conditions. M.A. Martin (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

So, please, @GoldenRing: or other admin, now I waited another 2 weeks since I've explained my views after you offred to unblock me partially (now it's over 6 moths since I was blocked), could you please tell me what was decided about unblocking me ? Thanks. M.A. Martin (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I have been very busy IRL and only just noticed that you'd replied. I have set out above the terms on which I would unblock you. Given your history in the Syrian Civil War topic, I think it would be better for you to get to know how we work here on some other, less controversial topic. It is not necessarily that I think you are trying to return to that topic in bad faith (ie wanting to disrupt it) but that it remains a very controversial topic and these types of topic are typically not a good place for new editors to learn the ropes. There are some (eg the Arab-Israeli conflict) where we simply ban all edits by new editors, partly for this reason. I remain willing to unblock you if you accept the ban I suggested above (though note I will be offline for most of the next week-and-a-half). GoldenRing (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course @GoldenRing:, I will accept the ban (anyway, if I have a doubt about a subject that could be controversial may I ask you here before trying to edit about it ?), because I understand your fear, becaue it seems I have no other choice :) and because one day I would like to be able to edit on the Syrian Civil war topic. I just wanted to try to explain that I've learn how Wikipedia works and how to work on it thanks to my experience of French Wikipedia, because both have lots in common. Thank you very much for your reply. M.A. Martin (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

PS : to help me contribute on subjects I don't master that much but think I may be useful to Wikipedia, maybe, if you are aware of some, you could point me things about French-speaking culture that need to be edited, or articles on French Wikipedia that could be usefully translated in English, or... Thank you M.A. Martin (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think GoldenRing and Yamla replied contradictory answers. Should a new request be done anyway ?FromNewsToEncyclopedia (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No. As you have engaged in sockpuppetry and block evasion, none of the above unblock discussion applies. You have shown you were acting in bad faith and have been reblocked for this. --Yamla (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know what is sockpuppertry, understand now... no I just worked with one of my collegue (from our "Challenge propaganda" group, outside of Wikipedia), because we met during last summer holidays for 1 week...M.A. Martin (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You'll need to put in an {{unblock}} template to request an unblock. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Jo-Jo Eumerus.

Actually, last time I did ask for unblock, it was accepted (I had to accept the condition not to contribute about Syria). I wasn't keen on the condition but I agreed and... I was never unblock... Never mind, I've contributed since that date over 1750 contributions and dozens of new article on French Wikipedia, mainly about Syria, including on the subjects I wanted to write here. What was here considered an attack page which could not be improved and definitively refused has become, with the help of other contributors, since almost 2 years, a long article with now over 45 sources. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa_Beeley On French Wikipedia, I can explain, argument, write, understand (all this I do much better in my mother tongue), and also I got helped, I have my contributions improved by other editors, and mostly, I was never accused of prohibited behaviours, never reported nor blocked. Because they all know I'm here to conribute to the Encyclopedia. As I am the same person... So I guess probably here the context and some contributors whom I got answers from, may also be quite different. (I just wanted to create that article in English because this woman is British and is Englishspeaker... and most sources are in English... if the context here was almost like on French Wikipedia, there would most probably be an article on that woman too, since a long time, or our French article would have been translated since a while...). I prefer to work in a positive, collaborative and fair environment to build and contribute to better an encyclopdedia, which I believe extreely useful, than fight here against I don't know exactly whom (one contributor called out publicly on Twitter to "all come and help her" fight against me, last summer ! English Wikipedia didn't care !! When I reported what I suspected bad faith (something as close as an other "attack page" was qualified a "promotional page" to be deleted...), there was also no reaction from English Wikipedia community either... (The article was on Eva Bartlett, who is more or less Vanessa Beeley's friend and colleague). Here, I've tried. I was a beginner. I've been ackward and made mistakes. I understood what they were. But I wasn't helped nor supported to improve and get better. I was accused or things I didn't do. And thus, I am convinced that this "pressure group" who doesn't want Vanessa Beeley to have a Wikipedia page is still somehow with ifluence here. It may seem a little paranoid, but being experimented working on Syrian war Propaganda issues, I have long experience of dealing with people like the Wikipedia & Twitter user... M.A. Martin (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Edition conflict on Wikidata

Hello @Snooganssnoogans:, I allow myself to tag you because of a disagreement with a contributor to English wikipedia (on which I am blocked), on Wikidata (which I am used to edit, it's my first editing conflict there). The user who disagrees with me threatened to have a general block of my account (with no reason, I am an active contributor to French Wikipedia since 2018, over 5000 thousand edits & 150 articles created, less than 0,7% cancelled, never been blocked there... (much easier, my mother tongue)... https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:M.A._Martin So reading this threats, I checked the user page of this editor threatening me, and have understood he/she seems to have same issues on English Wikipedia with you. Maybe you could give me an advice or tell me how to ask for assistance (I am blocked here in editing any page except this very one), even User discussion pages. The issue is here : https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q104830598&action=history Precision : the current version contains French languges mistakes (and a factual mistake too). Thank you. M.A. Martin (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)