Romantic Realist

Proposed deletion of Bend Not Break

Hello, Romantic Realist. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Bend Not Break, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. VanHarrisArt (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I second this. I've saved the page from deletion because it is notable, but please do not use it as a page to attack or otherwise disparage Fu's critics. I've added information about the controversy and it's currently as neutral as it's going to get, I think. You're welcome to contribute to the page, but given how heated your previous edits were, it might be better for you to comment first on the article's talk page to suggest changes to the page. I don't mean this as an insult, just that you are very passionate about this and as such, might not be as neutral as you'd need to be about the article. Even if the subject matter is one that you personally find repugnant and is something that many others would agree with you on, you have to be neutral and you have to keep from turning it into a soapbox for your viewpoints.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Were you talking to User:Romantic Realist or me? If you feel I'm disparaging Fu's critics, please drop me a note in my user page, so we can discuss it. I assume good faith, unless there is serious evidence to the contrary. VanHarrisArt (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• To Romantic Realist. He or she was using it as an attack page and the new version doesn't include any of the previous content.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Bend, Not Break, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Bend, Not Break for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bend, Not Break 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/Bend, Not Break 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 template from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia article

Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip mag or blog. Contents in articles must be relevant to an encyclopedic overview of the subject, not merely titillating trivia. Please read WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your rationale [1] is incorrect. Just because people are famous, not everything they do is worth noting. You would need to find reliable third party sources that discuss how the reported incident is in anyway worthy of inclusion. In addition, BLP comes into play regarding allegations about Stallone's actions needing to be validated by outside sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure of Financial, Business, Familial, Personal and other Conflict of Interests by Wikipedia editors in Bend, Not Break entry

After Henry Blodget, Frank Quattrone and other conflict of interest scandals in promoting and dumping Internet stocks on American investors at large, Wall Street analysts are now required to disclose their financial and other conflicts in their analyst reports.

Several Wikipedia editors (e.g., Van Harris Art) in the Bend, Not Break entry appears to be related, directly or directly, to promoters of Ping Fu’s memoir, i.e., Ping Fu & Associates.

Wikipedia has been a trusted source of neutral, objective, factual information by most well-educated Americans.

In order for Wikipedia to protect its reputation, it is imperative that any material conflict of interest be voluntarily disclosed by Wikipedia editors in this Bend, Not Break controversy.

Romantic Realist hereby reaffirms that he does not have any financial, business, familial or personal conflict of interest in this Bend, Not Break controversy. Romantic Realist became a participant in this Bend, Not Break controversy because Sir Harold Evans has not apologized for his racist, stigmatizing and xenophobic comments against Chinese Americans at large.

Please voluntarily disclose whether you have any conflict of interest before making additional revisions to Bend, Not Break entry in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.161.172 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Bend, Not Break shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yworo (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Romantic Realist, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Romantic Realist! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. As on Ping Fu and Bend, Not Break. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Bend, Not Break shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. First Light (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have a COI, Romantic Realist. Not even close. I've said before, and I'll say it again: I've never read her book, I'd never heard of her before the hate campaign started. Also, I've updated the ANI thread on you with this frivolous accusation. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've requested WP:Oversight on the reverted edits. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

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

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

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

your reason here Romantic Realist (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:44, 5 April 2013 (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.

Please stop

Please stop using your talk page to continue your inappropriate attacks against a living person. If you continue to use your talk page as a soapbox your talk page access will also be removed. If entertain any hope of being unblocked you will read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and base you unblock request upon that and not stray into pursuing your personal vendetta. The choice is yours. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)