Silmedia

Speedy deletion of Image:David Silverberg 04.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:David Silverberg 04.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[Talk:Image:David Silverberg 04.jpg|the article's talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Retropunk (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Silmedia! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 796 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. David Silverberg - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of David Silverberg

I have nominated David Silverberg, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Silverberg. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2019

This is a reminder to observe the advice at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and do not re-revert when another editor has reverted your edit, as you did at Fort Myers, Florida. Such reverts are the first step to Wikipedia:Edit warring, which is severely frowned upon. - Donald Albury 20:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

Your recent editing history at Fort Myers, Florida shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. – The Grid (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Silmedia reported by User:The Grid (Result: ). Thank you. – The Grid (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #25731 was submitted on Jun 26, 2019 15:40:31. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:40, 26 June 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I added a documented, referenced incident to the Wikipedia history of Fort Myers, FL -- a brutal, 1924 lynching that killed two black teenagers who were likely innocent. I was moved to do this by the 95th anniversary of its occurrence (May 25) as a means to pointing out where racial hatred and bias lead. This event was covered in the local newspaper at the time and on its 90th anniversary. It is an event that should not be forgotten or ignored nor should the memory of these people be lost, although I can understand that there are numerous forces who would prefer that it be covered up and expunged from the city history. Remembering incidents like this, no matter how painful, is especially important now, amidst an atmosphere of rising prejudice and intolerance. Accordingly, I inserted it into the Fort Myers history entry in the interests of providing a complete history of the city on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

The validity of the content you added is utterly irrelevant to your block. You are blocked because of your behaviour, not because of the content you added. Any unblock appeal will need to address this. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:50, 27 June 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.

Yeah, we got that part.

We don't deal with the merits or demerits of the edit over which you edit warred. You were reverted and were asked to seek consensus on the talk page. Instead, you continued to edit war. We do know you think this is a very worthwhile edit to make. What you do not understand is the need to stop reverting and to instead achieve consensus on the talk page. Please affirm that you will do so if unblocked, and that you will go through the dispute resolution processes if consensus us not obtainable. I am not declining in hopes you will amend your appeal as I've suggested before it is formally declined.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, we provided a great start of a discussion here where I explicitly stated that I found the material fascinating. This is not trying to hide the history but finding out the best way to either summarize the info or perhaps see if there's material to create a separate article. This is where discussion can be engaged and believe me, this is to actively engage a good discussion. I did not think the material you added was wrong in any sense but discussion needs to be engaged. I wish when the suspension ends that discussion can be made on the talk page. – The Grid (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)