Livewire123

Zenwexler, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Zenwexler! 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 experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Julian W. Lucas

Hello Zenwexler,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Julian W. Lucas for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Zenwexler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Moved page

I've restored this and moved it to your userspace at User:Zenwexler/Julian W. Lucas so you can work on it.

Here are some of the things you should focus on:

• Avoid using terms like "passion for" or using terms like "prominent", "world famous", or anything that could be seen as marketing speak or a subjective term. You also want to avoid name dropping (as opposed to listing jobs or things that are mentioned in sourcing) since this can also be seen as promotional.

• Any claims of being the first or any major claim needs to be backed up with an independent reliable source. The reason for this is that this can help validate the claim, especially as there are a lot of people who claim to be the first to do something.

• You especially need independent, reliable sources that focuses on Lucas in depth. Keep in mind that models aren't notable for working and won't automatically inherit notability from working with notable brands, as it's expected that a model will take on jobs, some of which will be with notable companies. (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Keep in mind that while you can use primary sources, you should try to use them sparingly since you want to focus more on sourcing that's independent. Also, avoid using IMDb as a source since this is seen as an unreliable source since anyone can edit the page.

You also want to only use sourcing that specifically mentions Lucas. If the source doesn't mention him then it shouldn't be used as a source since it doesn't actually back up the claims.

• I would avoid using the term social media influencer unless you have independent sourcing (more than 1-2 sources) that specifically calls Lucas this. I'd also avoid going into a lot of depth about his Instagram account unless there's sourcing to justify this. While his follower count isn't insignificant, it's also not exactly enormously huge to the point where it'd be something to go into depth about. In most cases social media accounts are only mentioned in passing, as this is something that is pretty much assumed that someone in the acting or modeling world would have.

I'll do some cleanup on the page to get it to where it should be as a minimum. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you so very much for all of your input. I sincerely appreciate all of your help. Truly.Zenwexler (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• OK - I've removed the promotional prose. I've merged the Instagram and activism section since it looks like he heavily uses that for activism. I also removed the links where it was just a link to the company page and didn't mention Lucas, as well as IMDb. At this point the main thing to do would be to add more sources like the Queerty and Gay Star News sources. I've marked the places that need sourcing accordingly. I figure that after you add more sourcing you can move this page back live. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• And no problem - it can honestly take a while to get used to Wikipedia's writing style. I know that some of the first things I added had pretty much the same issues I brought up here, so don't feel bad - it's a learning process on here. :) On a side note, I definitely recommend going through WP:ADVENTURE, which gives you a general overview of Wikipedia's guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oh! Another quick note - if you can find reviews for his comedy shows in places like newspapers and the like, that can definitely be used to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow. This is so great. I'm genuinely blown away by your kindness. So I want to add a source for the music video for rescue me. But I can't find any official source outside of the wikipedia page for the song, the imdb page, and of course the actual music video itself where he is clearly in the video. Would the actual official youtube link to the music video be considered an appropriate source? I have the same issue with his collaboration with Jillian Mercado and Tommy Hilfiger. There's no official source but on Tommy Hilfiger's website you can clearly see the pictures of them together. After getting that cited and with all the great and very, very appreciated changes you've made I'd love to make the page live. And then as time goes on I'll be able to add and cite other stuff and hopefully just let other people add to his page! I just want to do my part and create it and then let other people who can do a much better job then me take it from there :) A total random side note, you've really inspired me to donate more to wiki next time around when asked! Zenwexler (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Additionally at your advice I was also able to add a source for one of his comedy shows. Zenwexler (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Julian W. Lucas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Julian W. Lucas 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/Julian W. Lucas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Praxidicae (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Livewire123. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Julian W. Lucas, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Praxidicae (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Julian W. Lucas

Hello. I have absolutely no conflict of interest outside of also being part of the disability community. Lucas is a genuine face of models and actors with disabilities. I personally believe having a Wikipedia page is of great importance. This no different from other disabled models such as Jillian Mercado who he has even modeled with for Tommy Hilfiger. This is not intended to promote of any kind and was even supported and helped by readerofthepack an admin. Livewire123 (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Hello, I'm Path slopu. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian W. Lucas— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. PATH SLOPU 15:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

A sockpuppet investigation (SPI) involving your account is underway at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Livewire123. You are invited to participate. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2019 (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).

Livewire123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe that I should be unblocked. I never had any intention to do something against the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. A few months ago I created a page for Julian W. Lucas. After some back and forth and deliberation it was ultimately deleted due to not enough sources. There was a voting process that I accepted and did nothing to influence the vote. I never recruited or created new accounts or anything. I was waiting for more sources to come out with regards to Julian W. Lucas. After enough new sources came out I reached out to a friend to help me create the page that would be successful and not get deleted. I’m not very tech savvy and he does some coding so I asked him for help since the last time around was so stressful. He went out and found additional sources as well. When I saw my account was flagged I immediately explained the situation and then I was blocked.

Clearly my intent was not to do anything wrong as if I was trying to deceive I would have lied and acted like I didn’t know the other user. But I immediately was transparent and explained the situation. I’m genuinely confused as to how asking for help from another person is considered abusing multiple accounts. I didn’t do anything to try and influence any voting or anything else. All I did was have someone help contribute to an updated Wikipedia page draft to hopefully be able to successfully publish it not unlike what I did before with other users on here. I want to be very clear. He was not making edits on my behalf. I explained the situation to him and he took it from there. He collected sources and made edits just like other users had done on the original drafts. I even made an edit on a different article entirely so I clearly wasn't trying to act through the other user. I clearly was not having him make edits on my behalf. And I was very open and honest about all of this from the very beginning.

If I did do something wrong it was 100 percent unintentional and I truly apologize and I wish to be unblocked. I see I can be unblocked under these two categories given

   1. Requests for unblock in the event of a case of mistaken identity, misunderstanding, or other irregularity;
   2. Appeals for clemency, in which the appellant acknowledges the conduct that led to their block and requests a second chance.

Which I believe I fall under.

I am good honest person. I’m truly just trying to create a high quality, professional looking Wikipedia page. Meatpuppeting has to do with getting people on my side of the debate, I wasn't trying to create any illusions of support or do anything remotely deceiving. I even had the opportunity to do so when over a month ago when a vote took place and I recruited no one. I accepted the resolution and waited until I felt I was able to publish a page successfully this time around. If you even compare the original edit to the new one you'll see that it was significantly updated. The other user was not making edits on my behalf. I believe there is a very big misunderstanding as I had no intent to deceive. If I did something against the rules and regulations then it was without a doubt unintentional and accidental. And if more clearly explained to me what lead to the blocked then I will never do it again. I have no intention to create a page that is published due to deception. My only wish is to be able to successfully publish and make edits that is within the guidelines of Wikipedia.

I would like to add the original timeline of events for clarity.

The article was first published and then deleted. I then worked personally with the admin @ReaderofthePack: who reworked the article and with their own wording said it was ready for Wikipedia now. Which is why I submitted it again. Which you'll clearly be able to see in the log. The quotes were,

"I'll do some cleanup on the page to get it to where it should be as a minimum. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)"

"OK - I've removed the promotional prose. I've merged the Instagram and activism section since it looks like he heavily uses that for activism. I also removed the links where it was just a link to the company page and didn't mention Lucas, as well as IMDb. At this point the main thing to do would be to add more sources like the Queerty and Gay Star News sources. I've marked the places that need sourcing accordingly. I figure that after you add more sourcing you can move this page back live. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)"

With the guidance from @ReaderofthePack: I moved it live. I was literally just following what the experienced Wikipedia user was saying.

It was then deleted and went into a vote of whether or not it could stay. All the reasons that were given as to why it should be deleted were that there were not enough credible independent sources and voters invoked WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG

I had a discussion with the admin @Bearcat: one of the voters, where I quote

" we would need to see three or four sources of that caliber, not just one, before he could pass WP:GNG on "notable because media coverage exists" grounds."

When the new article was published a couple of days ago. It was published with the addition of 7 new sources including coverage from newspapers cross country and international magazines.

The Philadelphia Inquirer, The San Diego Union Tribune, The Centre Daily Times, The Intelligencer ,The Collegian ,The Bucks County Courier Times, Schwulissimo an International Magazine.

There was no vandalism or foul play at hand and I understand that an issue being considered with regards to sockpuppeting which I did describe and am currently appealing. The article wasn't just republished as a defiance or a disregard to what the admins or Wiki were saying. Each republish was made after carefully considering and deliberating with long time users and admins.

I worked with another person just as I did with readerofthepack. Which is why there were claims of sockpuppeting. The person who eventually blocked me originally voted against the sockpuppeting claim and I still was open and honest about the situation that ultimately lead to being blocked. I've done nothing but be as open and transparent as I possibly can. The opposite of what any  true sock or meat puppeteer does.   

So the article was published again with the additional sources and using the advice provided from the admin @Bearcat: in the original discussion,

"This is why I invoked WP:TOOSOON in my first comment: it's entirely possible that he'll clear the bar in the future if he keeps doing what he's doing, so an article about him will absolutely be recreatable when that happens"

"We have had lots of articles that got deleted because the person didn't meet our notability and sourcing requirements at the time, but then sometime later on they accomplished something more significant, and started garnering more real notability-supporting media coverage, than they had at the time of the first discussion — so, because the basis for notability had substantively changed since the first discussion, the article was allowed to be recreated again."

After a flood of new independent credible sources as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines for sources, the page was then republished.

I do not believe that the whole story is being told when the article gets deleted or requested for protection along with allegations of sockpuppeting as it looks like there is deception involved when clearly the timeline shows there is no such thing.

Thank you.

Decline reason:

This is too long. Try compressing it down to 100 words, and maybe someone will respond. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2019 (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.

• Do not send me any more e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

• I sent you an email because you are the blocking administrator and as per Wikipedia it's suggested that I reach out to you.

1. "Before requesting to be unblocked, you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them"

2. "To request that such a block be lifted, you may:

Address your appeal to the blocking administrator either on your talk page or by email (using the "Email this user" function on their talk page)." [1].

I reached out to you and the only reply I have received from you was "Do not send me any more e-mail." Livewire123 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Regardless, you've now sent me two, and you're not saying anything in the e-mail that you're not saying here. Don't send any more.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I sent you one email, seeking clarification. Then after gathering more information myself and speaking with other admins I felt it was appropriate to formally appeal the block which is why I then addressed my appeal to the blocking administrator which is you. I will not be sending you anymore emails as I have followed the protocol recommended via Wikipedia's guidelines. Livewire123 (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello @NinjaRobotPirate: I don't understand why I have been unable to gather any information from any admins I reached out to. Even you who have reviewed the case left no feedback and as per Wikipedia's guidelines it states "If it is declined, they will give their reasons in an change to the request template." No reasons have been given to me and at this time it is unclear to me as to how I should proceed.

There is no reason for you to email me. To stop you from pestering more people, I have revoked your ability to send email. You can communicate with admins through this page. I told you exactly what to do: compress your manifesto down to 100 words. But if you don't want to do that, that's fine. You can ignore my advice and post another manifesto, but it's probably just going to sit here for weeks in the queue without a response. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I apologize as based on my initial reply to you I clearly did not see that you recommended to compress my appeal. I obviously was not intending to ignore your advice as I only saw the part "This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request."