Alwaysremember

This user attends or has attended
The University of Utah.

This user is a current or former student of Texas A&M University. Gig 'em Aggies!

DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Alwaysremember

User:Alwaysremember, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alwaysremember and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Alwaysremember during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MER-C 07:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dcdanielcaldwell

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Dcdanielcaldwell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Alwaysremember/Dcdanielcaldwell

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Alwaysremember/Dcdanielcaldwell, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. (See section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dcdanielcaldwell (March 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 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 User:Alwaysremember/Dcdanielcaldwell and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• 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 get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Alwaysremember, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), 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) 23:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, 2015 Dallas City Council elections

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2015 Dallas City Council elections. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Dallas mayoral election, 2015. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Dallas mayoral election, 2015 – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —teb728 t c 00:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Alwaysremember. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by   Bfpage |leave a message  01:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Richard Sheridan

Hello Alwaysremember,

You removed well-referenced content that Richard Sheridan is an anti-gay activist and added the unreferenced claim that he is a retired engineer. If you want to mention his previous career, please provide a reference to a reliable source. I believe that calling him an anti-gay activist is accurate, neutral and well-referenced, based on how Dallas newspspers describe his political advocacy. He focuses on opposing homosexuality, doesn't he? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, I was PERSONALLY there Saturday 7-Mar-2015 ~4pm to witness his interview after applying for the endorsement of the Stonewall (LBGTQ) Democrats, and he has family members who are lesbians, as do I. He is an anti-racism activist more than anything, but that is not something anyone can smear him for. There would be no objection to calling him a religious-right activist, biblical-sexuality activist, or anti-corruption activist (all of which have made him unpopular in the media), as he would frankly bear any of these descriptions, but anti-gay rights further extends an accusation of bigotry that is mis-reported. DCdanielcaldwell 07:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that describe him that way. Your own observations are original research. There is another newspaper report that includes a voice mail he left for a reporter in which he repeatedly uses obscene angry language denouncing gay people and the reporter. I heard it. He is a bigot in my opinion, but let's leave it as it is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Sheridan's own writing does not get a spot on the election page, but I did provide the more recent DMN citation for him as an engineer. DCdanielcaldwell 16:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Alwaysremember, I am not finding mention in any of the sources that Sheridan is a retired engineer. I also do not understand the anti-sodomy statement you added. The sources call him and his political literature "anti-gay". Where, precisely, is the "anti-sodomy" thing discussed in the reliable sources? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, When you replaced the link at 18:43, 25 March 2015, you deleted the reference to the top post. The anti-sodomite remarkS (plural) come from the audio recording you removed at 19:12, 25 March 2015‎. DCdanielcaldwell 03:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If your user name is Alwaysremember, why do you sign your posts as "DCdanielcaldwell"? That's very confusing. As for the audio file, that is a primary source, and a very low quality one as well. It is utterly unreliable as an audio file without commentary. How do you know that voice is Sheridan's, and more importantly, how does anyone else know? I think it probably is Sheridan, but maybe it is a troll trying to make Sheridan look bad. And he sure looks bad after listening to that voice mail message. We report and summarize what reliable sources say about things, not what people allegedly say about themselves. And the reliable sources I have seen so far can be summarized in three words: He is an "anti-gay activist". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, I use the 4-tilde thing to sign, and it inserts DCdanielcaldwell. A couple weeks ago, I got a message saying that due to some kind of conflict between platforms, I would have to change my username from Alwaysremember, and I did, but my login was not affected. In other words, I blame it on the programmers. :Meanwhile, I was a little surprised at hearing the audio file, but I know the man; it is his voice. The audio file was posted by the Dallas Morning News reporter whose voice mail message Sheridan was just returning. He can be belligerent, but his intent is not "anti-gay" even if his calloused approach understandably makes people want to frame him that way. You could editorially call him a Bible-thumping religious fanatic, and I would leave it alone as being consistent with what I have seen. Insert "government" between anti-gay and activist, and the implication is sufficiently corrected to explain that he does not protest against the people, but against the government openly endorsing sodomy. The difference is a fine line, but the reasoning follows the same line of thought that says the Catholic and Mormon churches are "anti-gay" when in reality they don't want straight people having sex outside of biblical marriage either. Under the Golden Rule, I do not want to be called something I am not, so I will defend him from being called something he is not.

References

2015 Dallas City Council elections

I didn't delete anything. If I had then 2015 Dallas City Council elections would be red rather than blue. The consensus at Talk:Dallas mayoral election, 2015 is for one combined article not two separate articles. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Daniel DC Caldwell, I

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Daniel DC Caldwell, I requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -- haminoon (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Compare to Keyaira_D._SaundersDCdanielcaldwell 03:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Daniel DC Caldwell, I

I do not want to be impolite, but please allow me to express my standpoint. This person page was inappropriately and ARBITRARILY flagged for speedy deletion under the A7 tag specifically contrary to the guidance of that criteria, then the flag was PROMPTLY contested showing the article cited MULTIPLE credible, notable, relevant, and reliable sources (at least one for every part of a claim), and the article was still removed without ANY discussion. Please revert and restore the deleted page, and feel free to call me, 512-761-5740.

"It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied. Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion." Meanwhile, by comparison, Keyaira D. Saunders, another candidate, has not been so rudely discriminated against. Who am I supposed to report this abuse to? (besides Bbb23, as the deleter, of course)DCdanielcaldwell 04:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), 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) 03:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Alwaysremember. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:POLITICIAN

Unelected city council candidates who are not otherwise notable do not get Wikipedia biographies. Period. Not negotiable. End of story. You should cease editing any article having to do with this election, now. You have a severe conflict of interest, and risk being blocked from editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC) @Cullen328:, I hear your accusation of WP:COI. I was hoping that the goal "to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia" and WP:NPOV would be served by balancing the Incumbent advantage in at least this one forum. So much for Fairness and proportionality. *sigh*Censored. DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We are not your campaign website. There is no censorship involved whatsoever, as this is a private website, and we are following clearly established policies and guidelines.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: You are right, I have several web sites, but still, as in Gerrymandering, the rules always favor the establishment.

User:Alwaysremember/sandbox http://danieljcaldwell.webs.com

DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Blocked

A majority of your edits and recent comments make it evident that you do not understand the purpose of Wikipedia. This comment is particularly telling, as is the editorializing (per your own words) at this AfD. Wikipedia doesn't exist to provide balance or exposure in an election; it exists to provide information about notable subjects as reported in reliable sources. Most of your edits suggest that you are writing from the standpoint that, as a candidate, you have the right to an article about yourself, ostensibly for the purposes of self-promotion (this linkfarm and associated comment indicates just that). In short, you do not, and your repeated attempts to get your autobiographical article restored (even though, per the comments at its deletion review, it was rightly deleted) indicate that you're here for one reason, but that reason is not to build the encyclopedia. As has been told to you many times, this is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to promote your election campaign or to create "balance" in the world of said election, and your repeated insistence that you're being treated unfairly is unfounded and ultimately disruptive (i.e., via inappropriate page moves and posts in multiple locations about your deleted article). Until such a time that you can convince the community that you are here to improve the encyclopedia rather than promote yourself and your campaign, I do not see any benefit in allowing you to edit, and I am blocking this account per WP:NOTHERE. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for blatant use of Wikipedia for election stumping purposes, disruptive editing, WP:SOAPBOX issues. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Kinu ^t/_c 17:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: as indicated above, "indefinite" does not mean "infinite". However, any unblock request must indicate that you actually understand the purpose of Wikipedia and will stop using it as a means of promotion and/or soapboxing. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:11, 29 March 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Kinu, rather than falling under the WP:SNOW clause, I believe my efforts were in the uphill battle category. I will agree that in the absence of trust, a finite block until the election is over (May 9th) is reasonable. At that point, the reasons for blocking me would be moot and irrelevant, so that gives you my assurance that I will not repeat the offense. Even now, though, I do assert good faith intentions and that nothing I did was vandalism. The low-hanging fruit for an improvement I can suggest is moving the nutshell summary of the Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks to immediately above the Category:Wikipedia_information_pages infopage notice, since that puts the bottom line up front as a priority for making the page effective. I also think that this acceptance and appeal of the block shows my desire to cooperate in the Wiki community willingly and accept consensus upon hearing as opposed to just making another account with a different IP/email. Does that address all of your concerns thoroughly and briefly enough? DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After reviewing your edit history, I'm just surprised at your inability to manage your conflict of interest. At what point did you think it was acceptable, in any way, to make edits covering a political election that you are a part of? Especially to "give balance against the incumbents"? Unbelievable. The implied threat to create sock puppets to circumvent your block does not increase my opinion of your sense of ethics. This is not a forum. Kuru (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2015 (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.

@Kuru:, in answer to your question, "At what point [...]?", (to show my thinking was reasonable and rational, not "Unbelievable") I was impelled to volunteer information I saw as helpful, appropriate, and even necessary when I looked up the election months after the campaign began and found then only one candidate or race, showing either neglect to mention the others or a slanted and biased POV intentionally excluding the others. Either way, the pillars encourage being bold and taking risks, exactly what I did. Since not all candidates have a web page, I did not try to link [1] by my name, but instead, starting with the mayor candidates, unopposed, and my race, I did web searches for verifiable references. When one of the other candidates was understandably smeared (because even the "reliable" sources often misrepresent facts) as an anti-gay hate-monger, which I know to be not true, I stood up to defend him even though I really have nothing to gain from that personally. Sadly, the effort came back to bite me with this block. When another candidate's supporter that I did not know (and that I probably would not vote for) started making a stub, I tried to help keep it from being deleted like mine, and I only mentioned hers in comments defending mine to point out the inconsistent treatment. As a liberty-minded individual, I did not realize that talk-page explanations of equality principles justifying push-back against self-serving oppressive governments would have me targeted as a troll.[2] Furthermore, I was NOT intending the "implied threat" of sockpuppetry, but only attempting to thoroughly demonstrate that I did, as quickly as I could, read the guide, although admittedly not all the additional reading. With that said, could I at least get the Wikipedia:Standard_offer, or is that out of the question?DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alwaysremember: Nobody is saying you are a vandal or a troll. But some of what you do is disruptive because you are trying to make Wikipedia something other than an encyclopedia. If you want to continue editing Wikipedia, you have to accept that it is an encyclopedia. The fact that you continue to defend yourself indicates to me that you do not accept that.

As an encyclopedia, its pages are articles about notable subjects, written from a neutral point of view. Our operant definition of notability is significant coverage in independent reliable sources like newspapers. Since you as a notary public running for the city council do not have such coverage, you don’t get an article. And your early editorials about incumbent advantage and voters denied the right to vote were not written from a neutral point of view. —teb728 t c 07:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@TEB728: As a question after re-reading the WP:42 et al - Would those with a +/- interest be welcome to request other editors on an article's talk page to screen and implement recommended changes that they cannot do themselves because of the WP:COI problem?

Basically, my point is that a lot of valuable and useful NPOV input is being excluded because those interested enough to contribute information are disqualified from doing so. You can see that after discussion, several of my points were kept, being true and meritorious from NPOV. In other words, rather than being directed to avoid the topic(s) completely, I believe COI editers should be told on the guideline pages that advocating with explanatory remarks on the Talk page(s) may be acceptable and to provide there any additions and corrections that would genuinely improve the article(s) for encyclopedic reference.

For example, although it is not my race, I would want to cite the definitely significant, useful, and arguably notable detail that Dallas ISD [3] is concurrently/simultaneously having school board elections for seats 1 (overlapping),[4] 3, and 9, as covered in The_Dallas_Morning_News, Dallas_Observer, and D_Magazine, among others, and should be mentioned on the Dallas_municipal_election,_2015 page, even if not given its own article. Does this sound like an approach you could allow me to take? Will you forward that bit on for me? Recall: I am not even asking to be unblocked before the election, but to have it expire in a couple months. My timely response now is because I want to be able to contribute later, having learned the system a little better.DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that you are blocked, the purpose of your talk page access is for you to discuss your block and anything related to it (for example, to request an unblock). Per policy, others are not allowed to edit via proxy for blocked editors, so asking for someone to do so is inappropriate and may be considered disruptive. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, @Kinu:, allow me to point out that the Presumption of guilt does not apply here because, from your cite, the exception "they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits" completely applies to what I asked. Furthermore, I chose that example as a positive way to contribute to the main article I was blocked in connection with ("related to it"), so my questions should not be construed as inappropriate or disruptive, but per policy exactly. Although I had not thoroughly reviewed Template:2nd_chance yet, I was trying to follow the "proposing improvements" instruction in the appeal guide. For the 3rd time, I am not asking for immediate block removal, but only that it be set to expire in a month or few. Since it lines up well with my interests and self-professed expertise, I would be glad to give educated opinions here without any reasonable community fear that I would be campaigning because the election will already be well over!

And let me point out that linking to "presumption of guilt" is irrelevant here, since Wikipedia is not the U.S. justice system. You're clearly attempting to direct others into editing an article on a subject in which you have, per your own admission, a significant conflict of interest. My advice: if you truly want to be unblocked in a month as you claim, find something else to do for a month and come back then with a well-articulated reason. Wikilawyering isn't helping you at all. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Kinu, in laymen terms, I was just making the assertion that the tone I see is highly critical and negative toward every point I try to make. Basically I was asking for the equivalent of being able to know when I could get out on parole. And in regard to the "justice system", we don't have one. It is just a penal system. If life were all about justice, we'd all go to Hell. I don't want that. I ask for mercy and grace, and I really try to give them to everybody else when I am in a position to do so.DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As indicated, "when [you] could get out on parole" is when you can convince the community that you would edit in a manner that is constructive and in line with the goals of this encyclopedia. I try to be a reasonable person as well, but failure to get the point is not something that can be fixed by a third party. Your comments and apparent lack of understanding of the actual reason for your block suggest that this may not be in the near future. You've wasted enough of the community's time and resources, and thus I am revoking your talk page access. Feel free to use the appeal method below at some point, perhaps in six months, to request an unblock. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussion above from six years ago and requested an unblock. I am still interested in politics, both as a candidate and as someone who wants to make objective, verifiable, neutral point of view contributions. I still think it is ironic that suggesting I make no direct edits but rather just suggestions for others to vet and implement is interpreted as a basis to deny me the opportunity to make suggestions that other editors would see value in. I'm not trying to be disruptive, and I laid off of Wikipedia for basically six years to prove it, without making sock puppets or block evading. I understand that managing a conflict of interest may require asking a third party to approve my suggestions. I'm asking for permission to ask for approval, citing my sources when I do so, and I think that if you let me make suggestions, other editors will agree with them, so that we can collaborate uncontentiously and nondisruptively. I'm trying to improve (both myself and) the wiki, and I don't find being politically active as a reason to permanently block a contributor from contributing. Will you let me now, or am I forever condemned as persona non grata? DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Recommendation

In addition to WP:COI and WP:NPOV, I think it would be useful to read the very brief guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. The bar is set pretty high for including politicians below the national level in Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Other recommended reading includes Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. All content must be verifiable to published independent reliable sources. And although the Dallas Morning News may be a reliable source, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, (and even Wikipedia) are not. —teb728 t c 22:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Block notice

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 Kinu ^t/_c 04:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Alwaysremember/sandbox/

User:Alwaysremember/sandbox/, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alwaysremember/sandbox/ and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Alwaysremember/sandbox/ during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

---

UTRS appeal #18523 was submitted on Jun 14, 2017 15:02:59. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Forms of government

I would like to add that another name for kritarchy is juristocracy. DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

March 2021

UTRS decline

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. ( Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please see UTRS appeal #41362

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The block is not and was not necessary. I disclosed my conflict of interest, but that does not require an automatic block. To justify a block, something I contributed would have had to be in bad faith, not merely suspect and subject to vetting. My editing was only deemed unconstructive because I was a candidate personally involved in an election trying to bring neutral point of view where the Wikipedia election pages often give favoritism to certain candidates but give glaringly disparate exclusion from mention to the others. For example, some editors repeatedly deleted names of some candidates until I provided reliable source citations convincing several other editors to put back the excluded names. After the 2015 election, my sandbox with information I was trying to preserve and organize for future publishing (in the current 2021 election, for example) was speedily deleted, and I was indefinitely blocked as a persona non grata for trying to build a user page. Now, as a candidate again who has been mentioned in Texas and national (Washington Post) newspapers for nonpolitical activity, I am the only one of ten candidates excluded from mention by name on the page for the 2021 Fort Worth mayoral election. Nothing I did was harmful, and I understand that if I make any objectively controversial edits I will be immediately blocked again. However, what I am asking for in saying to be unblocked is to at least be able to point out objective shortcomings for other editors to vet and implement since you don't trust me to make edits directly. In the six years since I was banned for being involved in politics, I graduated from law school and passed the bar exam and learned how to present information objectively. I am not the only expert on the 2021 Fort Worth mayoral election, but there are ten candidates. Compared to the lack of notoriety of since of the other candidates, the exclusion of the one that was excluded strikes anyone who looks at a voter guide as arbitrary or capricious DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You appear to still not understand the original reasons for your block. The content of this unblock request leads me to believe that you intend to continue the exact same behavior that originally got you blocked, despite the passage of almost 6 years since then. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:12, 15 March 2021 (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.

.

Let's think about this... My sandbox or user pages were regarded as link farms. I can promise not to bother building a user page nor to make any stubs, sandboxes, or direct edits. I'm pretty sure that more than covers every behavior that might have been considered to justify a block. DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Two questions

I am a user that was blocked more than six years ago for having a conflict of interest, and I am still denied the Standard Offer. My specific sins that the administrators consider to be unpardonable include: (1) I discredited a mis-characterization by a more senior contributor that inappropriately defamed a political candidate. (2) Trying to consolidate information sources for my sandbox or user page created a link farm. (3) I created stubs without adequate citation. (4) I defended my actions. Let's think about this... I can promise not to bother building any stubs, sandboxes, or direct edits. I'm pretty sure that this commitment more than covers every behavior that might have been considered to justify a block. What else did I do so horribly wrong? And what else, objectively, do I need to do to qualify to come back on a probationary basis since you clearly don't think I will ever merit a clean slate? DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm just following up since my questions have been here for more than six months with no acknowledgment. DCdanielcaldwell (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)