Rolf716

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stop The Metro (July 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Taking Out The Trash 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stop The Metro and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Rolf716! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation 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! Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Proposed expansion of the Buffalo Metro Rail, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but moderator Taking out the trash asked me to post it there. It is relevant and has major references. If you continue to censor, I will report you to him as it was his suggestion. Rolf716 (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Stop_The_Metro&oldid=1164357834 Rolf716 (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Proposed expansion of the Buffalo Metro Rail. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I have requested that moderator intervene as you have gone against his recommendation. Rolf716 (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring Rolf716 (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

So, it looks like you're new here. There are some things you'll want to understand right up front.

There are no "moderators" here, and while there are admins, they have no special authority over content. The fact @Taking Out The Trash suggested you merge the information into Proposed expansion of the Buffalo Metro Rail was not some order from authority. No editor here, including admins, has any more say over content than any other editor.

When Dekema reverted your edit and came here to ask you to stop adding it into the lede, where it clearly didn't belong, you should have stopped trying to add it until the two of you had reached some agreement on how and where to add it. That's how we work here. When someone tells you to stop doing something, assume there's a reason, and make sure you understand that reason before you do it again. Valereee (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, so basically that's what I requested in the first unblock, an opportunity to edit accordingly, but was not allowed this opportunity. The fact is, the page represents a 'proposed' project. Under the US NEPA laws, https://protectnepa.org/what-is-nepa/ we have a right to show our viewpoint so that a mutually agreeable resolution can be addressed. Whether that belongs in the lede or not is a subject of debate, but am willing to move it to another location provided that it is not deleted. If he chose to edit it this way, most likely there wouldn't have been a contention. Rolf716 (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

So, this gets us into several new issues.

1. It sounds like you may be a representative of the Stop The Metro group. If that's true, you have a WP:conflict of interest which you'll need to disclose on your user page, which is at User:Rolf716. You won't be able to do that while you're blocked. I'd also highly HIGHLY recommend that you make WP:edit requests rather than trying to edit Proposed expansion of the Buffalo Metro Rail directly.
2. No one can guarantee something won't be deleted. We work by consensus here; if two people say something should be version X and three say it should be version Y, we go with version Y.
3. Not sure how NEPA comes in, but it doesn't include your right to freely express your viewpoint in a Wikipedia article. And just for future reference, even discussing the law in a content dispute here is likely to get you blocked again for making WP:legal threats.

For now just work on getting unblocked, which means convincing an admin you understand why you were blocked and won't do it again. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

With regards to your points:

1. No I am not a representative of the STM group but do reside in the affected areas as I know that Dekema (a.k.a Buffboy) does as well. Does he have a conflict of interest as well?

2. Ok, in this case there is only his version, delete the content or not... He did not reformat the page, just deleted the content 3x which is an Wikipedia offense [Edit warring], one that I chose to not report to give him the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately he was not willing to offer me the same courtesy, and was unwilling to compromise.

3. This is not strictly my viewpoint but the one of several thousands of people. The quote from the law was not a legal threat but to show context around the 'proposal' and the legitimacy of the censored materials.

I realize you are simply trying to help educate me on how to navigate this platform, so thank you. All the best! Rolf716 (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Buffalo Metro Rail

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm not intending to have an edit war with you, so how about we find a different way to add this information to the article? Rather that having it take up half of the lede which is undue weight relative to the rest of the article, it should be moved into a separate section. If you continue to revert my edits however, that would be breaking the Wikipedia:3RR or edit war rule which would not be good for either of us. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2023 (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:Rolf716 reported by User:Dekema (Result: ). Thank you. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2023 (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).

Rolf716 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Allow to properly edit the resource as directed previously by administrators Rolf716 (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2023 (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. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2023 (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.

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).

Rolf716 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

To properly (not in the lede area) edit the page with relevant information

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for the block. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2023 (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.

Rolf716 (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

So, Rolf716, there was only six minutes between the decline of your last unblock request and you making this one. Did you read the guide to appealing blocks, as 331dot recommended? Valereee (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I did read, but honestly I don't understand why it's been block as I followed the recommendation of another admin. Can you explain exactly WHY it's been blocked? Rolf716 (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You were blocked for WP:edit warring.

Admins -- which TOTT is not, btw -- have no special authority over content. No editor here, including admins, has any more say over content than any other editor. Valereee (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

If TOTT is not an admin, then why was my initial content submission rejected? It was a new submission, relevant content would be added over time. Rolf716 (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Any editor can decline a submission for appropriate reasons. Admins have no special authority over content. The minimum standard is multiple reliable independent sources discussing a subject at length, and at least some of the coverage needs to be outside the local area. That not-just-local looks like it's probably the problem here; this organization simply isn't notable outside the local area. Valereee (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What about 'Buffboy'? Not objective outside local area? Rolf716 (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The proposal is currently under sponsorship of the Federal Transit Administration, so it's a national project. Rolf716 (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

To keep us from continuing a convo in two places, I'll answer everything here.

Just because someone is from a certain area doesn't necessarily mean they've got a COI for everything in the area. The reason I questioned your connection to STM is that you said "we have a right to show our viewpoint". Who is we? If it's STM and/or anyone else opposing the project, yeah, you've got a conflict of interest for the article about that project. If Dekema has a strong opinion about the project, they may have a COI. If they don't have a strong opinion, being from Buffalo doesn't itself create a COI.

It doesn't actually matter whether the project is "national", no matter how that's interpreted. It's what the coverage is: who is discussing it in reliable sources. If there's only coverage in local media, an article isn't appropriate, but adding info to an existing article might be, which is what TOTT was getting at.

No one is censoring content. My take is that Dekema was saying (quite correctly) that content goes into the sections first, and then when shown to be important enough, may be included in the lede. But just shoehorning it into the lede isn't the way to go. If you'd added this into one of the sections, you'd have been on firmer ground. If it had been me at that article, I might have done what I did a little while ago, which is add that info to the Overview section.

Version yours vs. version his and consensus when there are only two arguing: basically the person wanting to add content is the one who needs to justify its addition, per WP:onus. There are way to resolve such a dispute, through things like requesting a WP:third opinion. But the crucial factor is that you do at least attempt to work it out together first through discussion rather than simply asserting you're right because you believe someone in authority told you to do whatever it is you're doing.

NEPA and "your" viewpoint vs that of thousands: I was using "your" to mean any number of people. It doesn't matter if it's one person or thousands, NEPA doesn't require Wikipedia to do anything at all about airing opposing viewpoints. Wikipedia editors decide, through a consensus process, what goes into an article. Valereee (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Very good, thanks for all your help with the platform, and with the edit. Rolf716 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Stop The Metro

Hello, Rolf716. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Stop The Metro, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Stop The Metro

Hello, Rolf716. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stop The Metro".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)